Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MAIDSTONE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

STROMNESS HARBOUR (GUARANTEE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Lubricating Oils (Tests)

Mr. Burden: asked the Minister of Supply how far the same tests and principles are applied to lubricating oils from all sources when approval is being considered by his Advisory Panel on heavy duty engine oils.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The same tests and principles are applied by the Advisory Panel to all oils tested irrespective of the source of supply.

Mr. Burden: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that if there are new sources of supply this procedure will be followed in exactly the same way?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir; certainly.

Aircraft Factory, Coventry

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Supply what action he is taking to maintain the production of aircraft at Armstrong-Whitworth, Coventry, and to avoid the dispersal of the highly skilled engineers at present employed by that firm in connection with contracts issued by him.

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the existence of redundancy at the Armstrong-Whitworth aircraft factory, Coventry, and that there is danger of a skilled labour force being broken up; and what steps he proposes to take to avoid this happening in connection with his contracts with this firm.

Mr. Bowles: asked the Minister of Supply (1) what steps he is taking to avoid redundancy of labour at Messrs. Sir W. G. Armstrong-Whitworth Aircraft Company Limited, Coventry, in view of the termination of contracts for the Hunter aircraft;
(2) what he estimates the redundancy of labour will be at Messrs Sir W. G. Armstrong-Whitworth Aircraft Company Limited, Coventry, at the end of September, December, 1955, and March, 1956, as a result of his cancellation of the contracts for the Hunter aircraft; and if he will place further contracts with this firm in order to prevent


the permanent loss of this skilled labour which is essential to the rearmament programme.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Supply (1) whether he will place further short-term orders for aircraft with the Armstrong-Whitworth works in Coventry in view of the redundancy impending there;
(2) whether he will make a statement regarding the unemployment position at Messrs. Armstrong-Whitworth Aircraft Works, Coventry, arising out of the termination of contracts upon the Sea Hawk and Hunter aeroplanes; and whether he will take steps to prevent the loss of this skilled labour from the aircaft industry.

Mr. Maudling: It has long been envisaged that the production of Hunters and Sea Hawks at Armstrong-Whitworth Aircraft, Limited, under contract from the Ministry of Supply would come to an end by the spring of 1956 and that the firm, if unsuccessful in securing a project of its own design, would then turn over mainly to the manufacture of Javelins under contract from the Gloster Aircraft Company. For reasons which I have already explained to the House in answer to Questions on 11th July, the Javelin programme on Royal Air Force account has been rearranged; nor have export orders been forthcoming so far in the numbers hoped for.
I am informed by the Hawker Siddeley Group that they are making every effort by re-allocation of sub-contract work to minimise the redundancies that are arising. They are also seeking further export orders. The full extent of the redundancies will, of course, depend upon their success in these directions, but if no more work at all is obtained they may amount, by next April, to 3,300, out of the present labour force of about 8,000.
I am anxious to do anything within my power to assist in finding further work for Armstrong-Whitworth Aircraft, but I should not be justified in either spending additional sums on military aircraft beyond the requirements of the Services or in transferring work within the existing programme with the result of causing equal, if not greater, redundancies elsewhere.

Mr. Edelman: Although the Minister seems to have washed his hands of the matter in his rather smug reply, is he not

aware that the aircraft workers of Coventry feel deeply aggrieved by the fact that while the country is short of aircraft they are being made redundant? Will he not himself take responsibility for placing some temporary work with the Armstrong-Whitworth company at Coventry in the same way as was done by his Socialist predecessor in comparable circumstances shortly after the war?

Mr. Maudling: I have explained that I cannot order aircraft beyond the requirements of the Services. We are often pressed by hon. Members opposite to reduce expenditure on defence. It is not possible to reduce defence expenditure without reducing the amount of work in defence factories.

Mr. Bowles: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree with the principle that if the Government at any time get together a labour force of skilled persons and for some reason or other it is not needed for the purpose for which it was intended, there is a social obligation upon the Government to ensure that the workers are not dispersed?

Mr. Maudling: My responsibility as Minister of Supply is to order the aircraft which the Services require and to order in the best possible way. It does not extend beyond that.

Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Midland newspapers are advertising in Coventry, Leamington, Rugby and Nuneaton for highly specialised workers similar to these men to go to such places as Gloucester? It does not make sense that Coventry men should be asked to leave their homes and buy new houses and take their youngsters from schools in the Midlands, and undertake all this expenditure for smaller wage packets than they were getting in Coventry.

Mr. Maudling: I am aware that the Gloster aircraft company is advertising for labour. I am glad to be able to make this point clear. It is advertising a few vacancies in order to maintain the balance of its present labour force and not to expand it.

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Supply (1) how the cost, expressed per lb. of aircraft, of producing the Hunter aeroplane in Coventry compares with that of producing similar marks in Blackpool;
(2) how the product of the Armstrong-Whitworth Company in Coventry made for his Department compares with that of the comparable factories controlled by his Department in Blackpool.

Mr. Maudling: On a lb. for lb. basis the Hunters being produced at Armstrong-Whitworth Aircraft, Limited, may be a little cheaper than those being produced at Blackpool. This is due almost entirely to the fact that the Blackpool factory is less fully loaded than the Armstrong-Whitworth factory at Coventry. Any transfer of work from Blackpool to Coventry would increase the cost of work left at Blackpool and would certainly not lead to any savings to public funds. The quality of the products from Blackpool and from Armstrong-Whitworth Aircraft is equally satisfactory.

Mr. Edelman: If it is cheaper to produce a comparable aircraft in Coventry than in Blackpool—after all, Coventry is an engineering city while Blackpool is a seaside town—is it not senseless and illogical to make men redundant in Coventry and keep other men working in Blackpool?

Mr. Maudling: The Armstrong-Whitworth company is a very efficient production unit, but so is the Hawker factory at Blackpool. As I explained, to transfer work at the moment would create redundancies at Blackpool, help the Armstrong-Whitworth company for a short time only, and put a greater load on the public purse.

Mr. Moss: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the percentage rates of scrap at Coventry and Blackpool?

Mr. Maudling: Not without notice.

Mr. Edelman: In view of the Minister's very unsatisfactory reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Organised Shoots (Cartridges)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet made a decision about continuing his scheme of distribution of

cartridges at reduced prices for pest destruction; and what was the total cost of operating this scheme last year, including the costs of distribution by employees of his Department.

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet succeeded in devising a scheme for providing cartridges for shooting wood pigeons, which is fair to the gun trade and not unduly expensive in cost of distribution.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): We are now considering, with the interests concerned, proposals for a revised scheme for the supply of cartridges at reduced prices for the organised shooting of wood pigeons and other harmful birds which will, I hope, provide a solution acceptable to them. The total cost of operating the scheme last year, including the cost of distribution by employees of my Department, was approximately £70,000.

Mr. Vane: Does not my hon. Friend think that this method of distributing cartridges for this purpose is rather laborious, expensive and inefficient? If his Department set its mind to it, might it not be able to think out something cheaper, simpler and fairer?

Mr. Paget: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether there is any objection to the present practice of getting a farmer friend to get one's cartridges for one?

Mr. Renton: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are very many small gunsmiths all over the country who have performed a useful service in the past and whose living has been cut away by the scheme? Will he bear in mind the need for having regard to the legitimate interests of these men?

Mr. Nugent: It is because we consider the present scheme not entirely satisfactory that we are now discussing an alternative.

Flooding, Earith

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that the village of Earith, Huntingdonshire, is frequently flooded or threatened with floods owing to the Great Ouse River Board's decision not to allow


water to pass through the Seven Hole Sluices into the old Bedford River; and what steps he will take to rectify this state of affairs.

Mr. Nugent: I am informed that the Great Ouse River Board, which is the responsible authority, has received no complaints about flooding in the village of Earith, and that the board has never made any decision not to allow water to pass through the Seven Holes Sluice into the old Bedford River.

Mr. Renton: But can my hon. Friend explain, then, why it is that he and I have received these complaints? Bearing in mind that in fact the River Great Ouse is often flooded at the village of Earith, while the old Bedford River remains bone dry, should not the Seven Hole Sluices be open sometimes?

Mr. Nugent: The sluice is open and the actual amount of opening has been the same for very many years.

Mr. Renton: Well, it is time a change was made.

Fisting Fleets, Milford Haven and Lowestoft (Coal Prices)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to meet the difficulties of the fishing industry at Milford Haven arising out of the increased cost of coal.

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the anticipated rise in the cost of carrying on the normal fishing activities at Lowestoft due to the increased cost of coal; and what action he will take to relieve the consequences.

Mr. Nugent: The increase in the price of coal will add about £5,000 per month to the cost of operating the fishing fleet at Milford Haven and about £1,500 at Lowestoft. My right hon. Friend recognises that, in spite of some improvement in trading results last year, the owners of near and middle water vessels at these and other ports cannot bear the full cost of the increased coal prices.
In conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, we are therefore working out proposals for a revised subsidy scheme designed to give relief to coal-burning vessels. We

intend to have these proposals ready to lay before Parliament after the Summer Recess.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will still be four months—three months of the Recess and, probably, a month's time-lag after that—before any change in the subsidy can be effective? Will he be more specific in the welcome assurance he has given and tell us whether any change in the subsidy will take note of this four months' time-lag, so that there will be every encouragement for these ships to be put to sea?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, I shall be very pleased to give the hon. Gentleman and the House the assurance that we will take into account the additional cost of the interval.

Mr. Evans: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that assurance about white-fish fishing, can he give a similar assurance about drifters and the herring fleet, having regard to the fact that the white-fish fleet at Lowestoft is largely diesel-engined, while the herring drifters are more often steam-engined?

Mr. Nugent: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's problem, but I am afraid I cannot give him that specific answer. That question is different from the one on the Order Paper, but if he will put it down, I shall be very pleased to give him the best answer I can.

Mr. Fell: Will my hon. Friend look at the question which the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) has raised? It is very important, because there are many coal-burning herring drifters and we would like to know whether they will be considered in the same light.

Meat Inspection Costs, Acton

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the heavy burden of meat inspection falling upon the Acton Borough Council; and as the meat and meat products are produced for sale over a wide area of the country, if he will amend his regulations so as to permit a charge to be made for the services rendered.

Mr. Nugent: My right hon. Friend is aware of Acton's difficulties, which are common to a number of local authorities.


In reply to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on 16th June.

Mr. Sparks: Have any steps been taken since that reply was given to do anything in the matter? Is the position now the same as it was at that time?

Mr. Nugent: I am afraid that the position is the same, because my right hon. Friend said at the time that he was unable to take any further action until he had received the report referred to.

Slaughterhouses (Report)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has now received the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Slaughterhouses; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nugent: No, Sir. But I am informed that my right hon. Friend will receive it this week.

Mr. Willey: In view of the rather unexpected delay in receiving the Report, can the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that the Government will deal with this as expeditiously as possible?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, we certainly will and, if it is at all possible, we will get it published before the House rises.

Silage Machines (Noise)

Mr. R. Bell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department will investigate the possibility of reducing the noise at present attendant upon the making of silage by machine.

Mr. Nugent: There are a number of mechanised methods of making silage which are not noisy, and the control of noise is primarily a matter for the manufacturers.

Mr. Bell: Will my hon. Friend recognise that there are also ways of making silage which are extremely noisy and that some of the latest and most favoured are some of the noisiest? Will he bear in mind the utterly appalling noise made by some of these machines and refer the matter to the Agricultural Research Council?

Mr. Nugent: It would not be a suitable reference for the Agricultural Research

Council, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the company concerned has been informally in touch with our Department and we understand that it is now considering some means of silencing this noisy instrument.

Mr. G. Brown: Will the Parliamentary Secretary remember that it is the smell rather than the noise which is the nuisance?

Mr. Nugent: That is very difficult to silence.

Mr. Vane: While considering this question of less noise, will my hon. Friend distribute some silent cartridges so that there can be more success in the shooting of pigeons?

Sanitary Inspectors

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the shortage of sanitary inspectors, if he will transfer to his Department the responsibility for meat inspection in the borough of Acton in view of the fact that such meat and meat products are produced for sale and consumption, over a wide area of the country and is therefore a national and not a local responsibility.

Mr. Nugent: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who is also concerned in this matter. We are aware of the difficulties caused by the shortage of sanitary inspectors and of the special circumstances affecting Acton. But we are satisfied that we should not be justified in seeking to relieve local authorities of their statutory responsibilities for meat inspection.

Mr. Sparks: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the ratepayers of Acton are not only having to finance the national service but are finding that the public health department is unable to carry out its functions as a third of the sanitary inspectors have to be earmarked for inspecting meat, which is a priority? In view of the shortage of sanitary inspectors and the fact that this is a national and not a local responsibility, will he reconsider his attitude?

Mr. Nugent: We are sympathetic towards the problem in Acton. There are really two problems; one is the shortage of sanitary inspectors and the other is the additional cost falling on Acton. My


right hon. Friend has undertaken to reconsider the matter in the light of the Report on slaughterhouses, and we hope that we may have some useful results from that.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Lung Cancer

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the increase in this country of deaths from cancer of the lungs revealed in the survey by the World Health Organisation, what action is being taken to deal with the situation.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): The facts about the rise in mortality from lung cancer are, of course, well known. Research into the causes continues and expands, and facilities for treatment are being improved. The value of early diagnosis is constantly emphasised and, where it has been shown that workers in certain industries are prone to lung cancer, preventive action is being taken.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health whether he will state the advice given by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee in respect of the action that should be taken by him in advising the public on the relationship between cancer of the lung and heavy smoking.

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Health in view of the fact that the Standing Medical Advisory Committee has advised that appropriate action should be taken constantly to inform the public of the known connection between smoking and cancer of the lung and of the risks involved in heavy smoking, whether this advice has yet been considered by the Central Health Services Council; and whether he has yet received a report of its views.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave on 27th June to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), to which I have nothing at present to add.

Dr. Stross: Would it be reasonable to guess that the Minister has been advised that from time to time he should draw the attention of the public to the fact that there is a known association between heavy smoking and cancer of the lung; and, in view of the answer he gave to the

last Question, does not he agree that we ought to look upon this matter as a method of preventing lung cancer rather than waiting until it is well established and cannot be cured easily?

Mr. Macleod: There is no need to guess, because the answer to which I referred the hon. Member in fact states precisely that. The point here is that this matter has been considered only by a committee of the Central Health Services Council and not yet by the full Council itself. There is an understanding, which I am sure is right, that I should not take action on the individual reports of committees until the Council has had an opportunity to advise me.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Is not it a fact that all the more recent research shows that there is no proof whatever of any direct connection between lung cancer and smoking?

Mr. Macleod: That goes much too far.

Dr. Summerskill: The Minister has said that he is not prepared to take any action until he has a further report. Can he tell the House when he expects the report, so that the House may know when to expect the action that he may then take?

Mr. Macleod: The next meeting of the Central Health Services Council, of which the chairman is a Member of this House, is due to take place in October. There are very differing opinions on this matter. For example, the Standing Advisory Committee on Cancer and Radiotherapy advised me in almost the exact contrary sense two or three years ago.

Miss Lee: Is the Minister aware that sometimes the relatives of victims of cancer, even more than the victims themselves, are tormented by the fear that research is held up by lack of adequate funds? Can he, therefore, give an assurance that there is nothing essential being left undone in this or any other field of cancer research because public money is not available?

Mr. Macleod: That is a most important question. I gave an assurance some time ago, which I am very glad to repeat. I think the exact words were that no new and promising line of research would be held up because of lack of funds.

Bracknell Health Centre

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Health whether construction of the Bracknell health centre will start in 1956.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): My right hon. Friend understands that plans for this centre are at a very early stage. No details have yet been sent to the Department.

Mr. Remnant: When applications are received, will the hon. Lady please give precedence to the needs of the people of Bracknell over ease of administration by the hospital board?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: We will, of course, bear all these points in mind.

Mr. Hastings: Is not it highly desirable that experimental health centres should be produced in small towns such as this so that we may learn the value of health centres in different places? Am I not right in saying that there have been few, if any, health centres in small towns in the past?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I do not dispute that, but this is a matter for the local authority, taking into account all the local considerations, not only of the facilities or needs of the district but also of the position and, to an extent, the desires of the general practitioners.

Invalid Motor Cars

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Health what would be the additional cost of an invalid motor built to carry two people instead of one; and what would be the estimated additional cost of maintenance.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The estimated additional capital cost is £75 per machine and the estimated total additional maintenance cost for the number now in use about £500,000 a year.

Mr. Gibson: Is the Minister aware that although the additional maintenance costs seem larger than one would expect, the actual capital cost of providing what is a much-needed service for injured people does not seem so large? Is he further aware that the first Question I put seems to have evoked a good deal of public support; that letters in the Press have led to a good deal of support for the

belief that we should provide two-seater invalid cars in suitable cases where people are entitled to them? Will the Minister look at this again?

Mr. Macleod: I am looking at the matter now. I cannot agree that the sums are small. I think that 12,000 machines at £75 each capital cost and an additional £500,000 a year for maintenance, which is £40 a machine, are substantial amounts. Previous Ministers who have examined this matter have been unable to differ from the preliminary conclusion I gave to the House, but I am ready to consider this matter all the time.

Dame Florence Horsbrugh: Will my right hon. Friend see whether he can be more generous with single-seat machines? There are some cases—in regard to one of which I have been in correspondence with him—where one feels that the regulations might be relaxed slightly so as to give even a one-seater machine to invalids, and will my right hon. Friend think of that first?

Mr. Macleod: I have considerable sympathy with that point of view. I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that in the case of motor cars, but not of motor tricycles, some of the qualifications have been relaxed, following a statement made two or three months ago by the then Prime Minister.

Mr. Simmons: Can the Minister say whether the model now being used is the original model which, I think, was found to be unsatisfactory? If it is unsatisfactory, will he consider the provision of a two-seater model to replace it?

Mr. Macleod: All that arises from this Question is the matter of figures. The costs I have used for comparison are for the latest type of motor-propelled tricycle.

Health Centres and Group Practices

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health the total number of applications for loans by general practitioners wishing to develop group practices as at the latest available date; and how many of these applications have been granted.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: By the middle of July this year, 160 applications for loans from the Group Practice Loans Fund had been received. Of these, 61 applications have already been approved.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Lady do something to improve the number of these cases, at the stage at which they are being considered, to see if more can be done to encourage the development of group practices, which seems to be a positive way to help to build up the relationship with the local authorities that we all wish to see?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Some of the applications have been rejected. The delay is not so much in the initial investigation, but once they have been approved it seems to take time for the conditions covering the loans to be fulfilled before they can be granted. This is in the hands of the general practitioners.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does that mean that consideration will be given to many of the outstanding cases and grants given shortly?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Yes, to those which have been approved.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to encourage closer co-operation between general practitioners and the local authority health services; and whether he will promise his full support for the establishment of such health centres and group practices where this co-operation can be made effective.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend takes every opportunity to encourage co-operation between general practitioners and local health authority services. Where new facilities for general practice and for local health authority services have to be provided and cooperation can be achieved between these two branches of the Service, either in a health centre or in a group practice, he would certainly endeavour to support it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the hon. Lady try to encourage some positive action on these lines? It seems as if the Service here is getting jelled at the present time? Is it not time that we gave positive encouragement to this form of cooperation? Cannot it be done if we get more health centres and group practices, insisting upon effective links with local authorities' services?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: On the one hand the Group Practices Committee have to satisfy themselves regarding the loans. I

do not think there is any undue delay where conditions are carried out and the loans approved. We believe that health centres in the first stage are very much a matter for the local authorities after viewing their facilities and the desirability for that form of health service.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the hon. Lady aware that one way in which she could take positive and very useful action would be to get rid of the dearth of sick visitors for elderly people by making conditions for the visitors more attractive and the general pay better?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am not quite sure how that question fits in with the main one, but I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that that arm of the Service has been steadily increased.

Local Authority Welfare Services (Grants)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Health what contribution is made from Government grants to the welfare services of local authorities, in the nearest convenient year; and how much of this was for the provision of aged persons' homes and accommodation for homeless families, respectively.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Apart from the financial assistance, estimated to have amounted to about £2,200,000, given where necessary by the National Assistance Board to enable residents in welfare homes to meet the minimum charges payable to the local authorities, contributions totalling £527,304 were made in 1954–55 under the National Assistance Act, 1948, and the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944. Of the latter total, £104,076 was for the provision of residential accommodation and £1,168 for the provision of temporary accommodation under the National Assistance Act.

Mr. Sparks: Is the hon. Lady aware of the immense amount of work still waiting to be done in regard to the provision of homes for aged persons? Will she take into consideration the necessity of improved Government grants on a percentage basis, in the same way as percentage grants are made to local authorities for education, health and other services? In the absence of improved Government grants this very desirable service must lag behind considerably.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The point raised by the hon. Member would require legislation, because it alters the basis of the terms of agreement laid down under the Act. About 800 old people's homes have been opened since the inception of the National Health Service, and between 3,000 and 4,000 beds a year are being added. I cannot give any assurance as to the very different basis which the hon. Member suggests for the financing of schemes as between local authorities and the Treasury.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Children's Wards (Visiting Hours)

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a further statement on the effect of his circular to hospitals encouraging daily visits to children's wards.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am gratified at the progress which has been, and is being, made. I have asked my Standing Medical Advisory Committee to consider whether there is any further advice which might usefully be offered to hospitals which have not yet felt able to introduce daily visiting of children.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and ask him whether he will consider circulating those hospitals which have not adopted this practice with the evidence, or a summary of the evidence, from those hospitals which have been practising it for a considerable time? Further, does he realise that the chief opponents, who are the sisters and nursing staffs and not the doctors, might be informed that they do not see the damage that takes place: it is the parents who see it afterwards?

Mr. Macleod: In reply to the first part of that question, I would say that it is precisely that point that the Standing Medical Advisory Committee is now considering, and I think that it has accepted that proposal in principle. The figures, which perhaps the House might be interested in, show that in 1952 under 25 per cent. of hospitals allowed daily visiting of children, and the figure at the end of last year was 62½ per cent., which is two-and-a-half times as much. I am told that the position has considerably improved since then. I should make it

clear that I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) for his persistence in this matter, which is one to which I attach great importance.

Mental Illness

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in England and Wales who, during 1952 and 1953, were certified as of unsound mind and admitted to involuntary detention in mental hospitals on Summary Reception Orders made under Sections 14 and 16 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, as amended by the National Health Service Act, 1946; and what proportion of these were admitted directly into mental hospitals, and what proportion after an intermediary period in the mental observation ward of a general hospital.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Certified patients admitted to mental hospitals during 1952 and 1953 totalled 20,297 and 20,579, respectively. Of these totals the proportions admitted following a period of observation in a general hospital were respectively 16·92 and 15·69 per cent.

Dr. Johnson: Is not my right hon. Friend aware from his figures that the majority of the large number of admissions under this Section are direct into mental hospitals and only a minority are through the intermediary mental observation wards, and is not he aware of the statement made by a number of prominent medical psychiatrists that, despite the warnings of the last Royal Commission, the certification of people suffering from temporary delirium and their consequent detention in mental hospitals is still taking place?

Mr. Macleod: The exact terms of my hon. Friend's original Question asked for those who spent an intermediate period in the mental observation wards of a general hospital. There are, of course, in addition a great number of patients who spend a period in the mental observation wards of mental hospitals, which would put rather a different complexion on the figures which I have had to give him, and that is a proportion which I should like to see increased.

Mr. K. Robinson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is considerable difference of opinion among those professionally concerned in this


problem about the whole desirability of observation wards? Would the right hon. Gentleman look into this aspect of the problem and perhaps consider the setting up of a Departmental committee of inquiry?

Mr. Macleod: There is a difference of opinion about almost everything in connection with this and almost every other matter in the Health Service, and I cannot undertake to set up Departmental committees into all of them.

Mental Defectives

Mr. Barter: asked the Minister of Health what shortages exist on present notifications for permanent institutional accommodation for low grade mental defectives and other mental defectives, respectively, in each region.

Mr. Iain Macleod: As the information required involves a statistical table, I will, with permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

MENTAL DEFICIENCY HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION

The numbers of defectives notified as being in need of hospital care and still awaiting admission on 31st December, 1954, the date of the last completed return, were:—


Region
Low grades
Others


Urgent
Non-urgent
Urgent
Non-urgent


Newcastle
203
211
142
357


Leeds
111
60
167
128


Sheffield
328
250
189
265


East Anglia
164
12
91
53


North-West Metropolitan
76
32
146
128


North-East Metropolitan
105
88
133
241


South-East Metropolitan
177
242
34
48


South-West Metropolitan
187
141
97
184


Oxford
86
53
76
90


Bristol
35
31
23
42


Wales
107
136
271
493


Birmingham
270
105
113
120


Manchester
187
57
250
94


Liverpool
101
31
131
41


TOTAL
2,137
1,449
1,863
2,284

Mr. Barter: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is satisfied that accommodation available for short-term care of mental defectives is fully

utilised by local authorities; and if not, to what extent it is not utilised;
(2) which local authorities do not make use of the short-term care provisions for mental defectives authorised by his Department.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: During 1954, 1,700 mental defectives were received for short-term care in hospitals and 461 elsewhere. Ninety local health authorities in England and Wales have power in schemes approved under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act to maintain defectives in these circumstances. No specific amendment of schemes is needed to enable them to secure removal to a hospital. No information is available about the number of places suitable for such cases at a given date or the number of authorities who in fact have initiated action.

Mr. Barter: Will the Parliamentary Secretary circularise local authorities again informing them of the value of this provision to those who have the constant care of mental defectives?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a circular was sent to all local authorities and there has been quite a substantial response, in that each year there has been an increase in the number of patients for whom these facilities have been arranged. I do not think that it calls for another circular, but no doubt the publicity given by this Question will emphasise the sympathy of the House with this problem.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the hon. Lady say why no annual report is made of these figures? They seem to be very important statistics which her Department should have. Why are they not available?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: We have statistics of these cases admitted. But the hon. Member asked for the number of places available. In some cases, where normally permanent patients in mental hospitals are allowed out on holiday, the opportunity is taken to use the bed thus made available for a patient staying for a short period. There are no permanent statistics of the availability of beds on that basis, but we have a record of the number of people who are able to make use of such facilities.

Greaves Hall Hospital

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Minister of Health when it is expected that the new hospital at Greaves Hall will commence to take patients; what is the number of beds which will be reserved for the Liverpool region; and how many of those beds will be for low grade mentally defective children.

Mr. Iain Macleod: In December, 1956. This first stage of the new hospital which will provide 220 beds, of which 100 will be for low grade mentally defective children, will increase the combined resources of the Liverpool and Manchester regions and admissions will be determined by urgency of need, no specific number of beds being reserved for either region.

Mr. Pannell: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to take into account that in Liverpool there are 96 low-grade mental defectives awaiting accommodation compared with 62 in January, 1951? In view of the growing seriousness of this problem, will he consider special steps for dealing with it in Liverpool?

Mr. MacLeod: I am always ready to consider any proposal, and indeed there is one before us now from the city authority which may be of help in solving this problem. Regarding the wider problem in the Liverpool region referred to by my hon. Friend, in addition to Graves Hall there are the new hospital buildings at Newchurch in the Liverpool region, and Cranwich in the Manchester region, providing another 400 beds for this type of case.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Without denying that there is a problem in the Liverpool region, may I take it that the Minister will not overlook the difficulties experienced in the Manchester region?

Mr. Macleod: No, indeed I will not. These two regions are considered together. The Liverpool and Mancheser regions pool their waiting lists and, to some extent, the provision is planned with that in mind.

Thoracic Surgery, Manchester

Mr. Boardman: asked the Minister of Health the waiting time on current lists in the Manchester region for tuberculosis thoracic surgery; and how this compares with other regions.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The period varies from two or three weeks to rather over a year according to the urgency of the case and the centre concerned. Up-to-date comparative figures for other regions are not readily available, but I understand that waiting periods are generally rather less.

Mr. Boardman: Does the Minister agree that the waiting time in the Manchester region is longer than anywhere else in the country and that the delay is due almost entirely to the shortage of specialist surgeons? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he is doing now to give many unfortunate sufferers in this area an equal chance of recovery, which they have not at the moment?

Mr. Macleod: The position is certainly serious, but without notice I should not like to say whether this region is the worst. The most important relief which could be given would be the appointment of extra specialists in thoracic surgery. The hon. Member will be glad to know that an extra one was appointed on 1st June and an additional one will be appointed in the autumn. That will make a substantial contribution to the solution of the problem which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the Minister say whether he periodically brings to the attention of the deans of the various medical schools that there are shortages in these different fields of medicine and surgery?

Mr. Macleod: No, I have not con-considered that point. It is a very sound one, and I am glad that the right hon. Lady has raised it. I will see whether it is a suitable method of working.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (CHARTER REVISION)

Mr. Keegan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will support the proposal for a Charter Review Conference which will automatically be on the agenda for the next General Assembly of the United Nations.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign


Secretary to the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne) on 13th July.

Mr. Keegan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does that mean that if there is a Review Conference—which is still a possibility—Her Majesty's Government wll not send any representatives to it, or put forward any proposals at it?

Mr. Turton: No, certainly not. If a Review Conference were agreed upon, Her Majesty's Government would certainly wish to be represented.

Oral Answers to Questions — s.s. "ANSHUN" (EGYPTIAN ATTACK)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the reply he has received from the Egyptian Government to the protest delivered on 6th July at the firing on the British steamship "Anshun".

Mr. Turton: The Egyptian Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs has now given Her Majesty's chargé d'affaires at Cairo an interim oral reply to his representations. This begins by expressing regret that a written reply is not yet ready owing to the fact that information about the incident is still being received and scrutinised by the Egyptian authorities.
The Minister said that none of the shots fired was aimed at s.s. "Anshun" and that if she was hit the Egyptian Government deplored it. He recognised that there might have been some confusion regarding signals exchanged between ship and shore. He added that, without prejudice to the investigations now being made, measures would be taken by the Egyptian authorities to review their system of signalling and warning in order to ensure, so far as they can, that no further incidents happen.
Her Majesty's Government do not regard this reply as adequate and will continue to press for a full and proper answer. They have reserved the right to claim compensation and consider that an apology is called for. They have made it clear to the Egyptian Government that incidents of this kind can only damage relations between the two Governments.

Mr. Davies: Would not the Joint Under-Secretary agree not only that this reply is quite inadequate but that it is

most unsatisfactory? It is not very relevant whether shots were fired at the s.s. "Anshun" or not, but the firing of shots in the channel is quite contrary to international law. Has that been pointed out to the Egyptian Government? Is this matter still on the agenda of the United Nations? If the blockade of the Suez Canal and adjacent waters is not on the agenda, will Her Majesty's Government see that it is placed on it for the next meeting?

Mr. Turton: I think that we had better wait. This is an interim reply, and I think that my description and comments upon that reply are sufficient. With regard to the other point—the question whether this action was right under international law—the answer is that the chargé d'affaires did raise the point. We hope very shortly to receive a better, fuller and more final reply from the Egyptian Government.

Mr. G. Jeger: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a very good policy to ban the export of arms to Egypt until the Egyptians can learn to point them in the proper direction and fire them with their eyes open, knowing at what they are aiming?

Mr. Turton: I do not think that that question is relevant to this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES VISAS (FINGER PRINTS)

Mr. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make further representations to the United States of America with a view to an alteration of the present arrangements requiring British visitors to the United States to be finger printed.

Mr. Turton: As explained on 8th March, 1954, by my hon. Friend the present Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, Her Majesty's Government have had no valid ground for making representations to the United States Government on this subject.

Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that Russia recently made a strong protest about her citizens being finger printed? In the interests of better relations, is it not time that Her Majesty's Government pressed for an alteration of these arrangements, which are very much resented by


British people? Why should they be charged with having criminal tendencies, almost, before they go to the United States?

Mr. Turton: This visa requirement must be the domestic concern of the visa-issuing authority. What we have done is to make representations to try to reduce the formalities, and the validity of the visa has recently been extended to four years.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR RADIATION (UNITED STATES PROPOSAL)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the support which Her Majesty's Government propose to give to the principle that world scientific information on the effect of radiation shall be collated by the United Nations, which has been put forward by the United States' representative.

Mr. Turton: Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have given further study to this question and wish to make it clear that they would support a resolution in the United Nations on the lines of Mr. Lodge's proposal.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister agree that the effectiveness of such a proposed investigation would be greater if atomic tests were to cease? Will not Her Majesty's Government consult the other Governments concerned, at any rate with a view to arriving at an agreement to cease having any atomic explosions pending the receipt of a report of such an investigation?

Mr. Turton: This proposal dealt with the collation of scientific material. The other point seems to be quite a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Railway Strike (Assistance Grants)

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance why instructions were given to his local officers that railway footplate men who applied for assistance for their wives and children during the last few days of the recent railway dispute were to be advised to

apply for an advance of wages from their employers and were refused assistance by his Department.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): It is not my local officers but the National Assistance Board who deal with applications for assistance. The Board informs me that, in accordance with normal practice, railwaymen who applied for assistance after the strike was over were expected to take advantage of the employers' offer to make available some payment on account of wages earned, but grants of assistance were made where this payment, with any other available resources, was insufficient to meet need.

Mr. Gibson: Is the Minister aware that that is not quite correct? I can refer him to one family, at any rate, which was refused assistance when it was in great need. This telling of the men—as one of the officers in my district put it—to "go and sub off the employer," is very much resented by the men involved in the dispute. Is it not possible to get rid of this element in his administration?

Mr. Peake: If the hon. Member has particulars of any case where he thinks the Board has not discharged its duty, perhaps he will be good enough to send me them. In general, I think it is reasonable to expect these men to take advantage of their employers' offers to advance part of their wages before having recourse to the National Assistance Board.

Coal Prices

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will arrange for the National Assistance Board to give higher coal allowances to meet the increased cost of coal.

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) if he is aware that an increase of from 10 per cent. to 12½ per cent. in domestic coal prices takes place on 18th July; and if he will bring this to the notice of the National Assistance Board with a view to increasing assistance scales to cover this and other recent increases in living costs;
(2) what reply he has sent to the Federation of Old Age Pensioners Associations request for an increase in


the retirement pension to 50s. to cover the increased cost of coal and other recent increases in living costs.

Mr. J R. H. Hutchison: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, in view of the rise in coal prices, what review he is making of the rates of old-age pensions.

Mr. Peake: The National Assistance Board are, of course, watching the position, but fuel is only one of the necessities covered by assistance grants, which were increased as recently as last February. An acknowledgment has been sent to the communication from the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners Associations about retirement pensions, but I must point out that the rates of these pensions as raised only three months ago provide a higher purchasing power than any rates in force at any previous time.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that the old-age pensioners have to begin to pay their higher coal prices today, whereas, if precedent is followed, they will not get an increase in their pensions until just before the next General Election? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore make representations to the National Assistance Board to meet this emergency need of the pensioners?

Mr. Peake: We must try to keep some sense of proportion about this matter. If a household were to consume one hundredweight of coal per week, the additional cost involved by the recent increase would be about 7½d.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that it is precisely a sense of proportion that is needed in these matters? Is he also aware that tens of thousands of old people who are living in rooms depend entirely upon coal for cooking and heating and that their weekly bill is between 7s. 6d. and 10s., which is an enormous proportion of their pensions? Although it is very hot now, it will probably be very cold before we meet again in October. Will the Minister make it clear to the National Assistance Board how urgent this matter is?

Mr. Peake: I have every confidence that the National Assistance Board will continue to discharge in the future, as it has done in the past, the duties laid upon it by Parliament.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that coal is essential to old people and is not a luxury? When he tells the House that assistance rates were raised last February, he will no doubt recall that those rates assumed that coal could be bought at a certain price but that since then the price has increased. What does he intend to do about that?

Mr. Peake: It is not a completely novel situation. I can hardly believe that during the tenure of office of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite some of the necessities of life did not go up in price from time to time.

Mr. D. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that, regardless of his statements here this afternoon, there is a growing tendency among recipients of assistance, the general public and public men and women, to believe that there is more hard-heartedness and inhumanity today than there was in the past?

Mr. Peake: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not say that. It is incontrovertible that the present National Assistance scales give a better standard of living than any scales in force at any previous time.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is not the increased price of coal yet another example of the failure of nationalised industry: worse quality at increased cost, and the wretched public has to lump it?

Mr. H. Hynd: On a point of order. In view of the fact that fishing vessels are getting a subsidy because of the increased price of coal, may I give notice—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Prices

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what he estimates that the cost of imported coal would be to industrial users, based on the full economic price; and what they are actually paying now for a comparable grade of coal.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): On average the loss on imported coal is about £2 per ton, but


most of the imports go to domestic consumers and to the gas and electricity industries.

Mr. Hynd: Will the Minister confirm or deny that industrialists get their coal more cheaply than domestic users?

Mr. Lloyd: All the coal prices to different users are decided upon the same principle.

Mr. Blyton: Is the Minister aware that there is great dissatisfaction in mining circles that industrialists should get coal at uneconomic prices? Is he further aware that the miners will not accept this depressed balance sheet on the payment of import coal as an argument for worsening their wages and conditions?

Mr. Lloyd: It is not true that industrialists are getting their coal at uneconomic prices, any more than it is true that the domestic consumer or the Central Electricity Authority get their coal at an uneconomic price.

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what proportion of the increase of 18 per cent. in the pithead price of coal is attributable to the estimated loss of £24 million on coal imports.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: About one-fifth.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware of the enormous increase which takes place when that one-fifth goes through the chain of distribution in various industries, and comes to the end price? Will not he press his colleagues to alter the present absurd system and to allow the National Coal Board to charge prices in accordance with the cost of production of home-produced coal alone?

Mr. Lloyd: That is quite a different question.

Distributing Agencies

Miss Lee: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power to what percentage of coal distributing agencies his powers of bringing agencies under national ownership apply.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: None, Sir.

Miss Lee: In that case, will the Minister take steps to take over either the whole of the distribution system or part of it in order to answer the suspicions—many of them, I believe, justified—that there is

too big a gap between the price of coal at the pithead and the price of coal to the customer?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir.

Coal Mines (Capital Investment)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. NABARRO: To ask the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will state the annual investment in the coal mines since vesting date 1st January, 1947, showing year by year figures; and the annual investment authorised for 1955, 1956 and 1957.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nabarro.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can we be assured, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is not in the Tower?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Opium

Mr. Remnant: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions there are on the manufacture and use of opium in this country.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): Opium may only be imported into the United Kingdom under licence and through approved ports. The possession, procuring, supply, and the use of opium for manufacturing drugs require a licence or other authority. Licensees and other authorised persons are required to comply with conditions as to labelling, safe custody, the keeping of records, and, as regards manufacture and supply, the making of returns as to receipts and disposals of the drug and its derivatives. The manufacture, sale, other dealing in, and possession of opium prepared for smoking are completely prohibited.

Mr. Remnant: Is the Under-Secretary aware that so long as opium is available it is quite possible to make a passable imitation of heroin in a kitchen saucepan? Does that not militate against the ban on heroin?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think that question should be put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Herring (Filleting)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action the Herring Industry Board is taking to provide the public with herrings free from bones and so increase the demand and consumption of this type of fish.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart): The Board has commissioned a manufacturer to design a filleting machine capable of removing all the bones from raw fresh herring. They have also conducted experiments in producing packaged quick-frozen herring of which the bones have been softened by pressure cooking.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Personal Case

Mr. Dodds: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will report on the result of the medical examination given to 2731286 Aircraftman, Second Class, S. G. Thaine, who was brought home from Iraq; and what is his present medical grade.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): The dyspepsia which caused this airman to be brought home has now been alleviated. His feet have been examined by an orthopaedic specialist who has recommended a course of exercises, and some slight alterations to his shoes. While he is undergoing treatment he will remain classified as temporarily unfit for duty.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the Under-Secretary of State recall that when he answered my Question, and also replied to me on the Adjournment, he said it was not a question of the man's foot at all? How can he deny that a bone specialist has recommended that one toe be amputated, and that one leg is three-quarters of an inch longer than the other? Would he not agree that it is essential that this man should be discharged from the Service at the earliest possible moment as the man is not fit to be in the Service?

Mr. Ward: The previous Question to which the hon. Member has referred asked the reason for bringing this man home from the Middle East. That, I explained, was due to another cause altogether. As regards the second part of the supplementary question, the man has already been seen by an orthopaedic specialist and will be seen by him again about 1st August. The man is also at liberty to consult his own civilian doctor.

Mr. Dodds: Because of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer and because I am unable to deal with the matter by Question and answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 [Sittings of the House].—[Mr. Crookshank].

MID-ULSTER CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Speaker: The Attorney-General.

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. Before the debate on the Attorney-General's Motion, I should like to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a question of order, of which I gave you rather short notice this morning. I want to submit to you that the Motion in the name of the Attorney-General is out of order and not discussable in the House of Commons in that it offends against the rules under which we do not discuss matters which are sub judice. If I explain what I have in mind I hope it will be understood that it is not for the purpose of argument but only for the purpose of making my point clear.
In the first part of the Attorney-General's Motion the House is invited to resolve
That Thomas J. Mitchell, returned as a Member for Mid-Ulster, having been adjudged guilty of felony, and sentenced to penal servitude for ten years, and being now imprisoned under such sentence, is incapable of being elected or returned as a Member of this House.
Since the House is being invited to pass that Motion to resolve that matter, it is not necessarily—I emphasise necessarily—a matter of law.
Now, at this moment, there is in the High Court of Northern Ireland a petition pending in which a gentleman is claiming that he was returned to this House unopposed and ought to be declared a Member in spite of the fact that someone else contested the Election with him and obtained more votes than he did.
As I understand, the question that is being litigated in the Ulster High Court is whether that gentleman's claim to have been virtually returned unopposed is good or bad. But the ground of his claim is precisely that which is contained in part of this Motion, that his opponent had been adjudged guilty of felony, had been sentenced to penal servitude, and, therefore, was incapable of being elected or returned as a Member of the House of Commons. It looks as if the House this afternoon is being invited to resolve that the petitioner before the Ulster High

Court is right. In other words, we are prejudging in this House—[Interruption.] I am making a submission to Mr. Speaker, and I think it is a substantial one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Thank you.
It looks as though this House is, therefore, being invited, while this question is before the Ulster High Court, to resolve the precise question that is raised by the petitioner in the High Court, and I think that that is exactly what the House of Commons never permits itself to do. The facts on which I am making that submission are those communicated to us by the Leader of the House several weeks ago. He told us that there were two such cases, that there had been a petition in one of them, that the petition was still pending, that we could not discuss the case which was sub judice, but that we could discuss the other.
When we look at the terms of the Motion it seems quite clear that we cannot possibly discuss, and still less pass, this Motion without virtually giving an instruction to the judge trying the case in the Ulster High Court that the House of Commons is of opinion that the petitioner is right. I submit, therefore, that the Motion—I would not say it would be out of order always—is out of order now as being premature and will remain out of order until we know the result of the proceedings in the Ulster High Court.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) for giving me notice of this point. He said it was short notice, but short, notice is very much better than no notice at all. I am quite satisfied that the hon. Member's point is misconceived. The case before us today is that of Mr. Thomas J. Mitchell and we can proceed on that case with the evidence that is before us. The case which is before the High Court is, of course, sub judice and will be decided by the High Court on the evidence relevant to that case which will be produced before it.
We have none of that evidence before us and, therefore, I must rule that that case is entirely a separate one and that we are entitled to proceed upon the case which is mentioned in the Motion. As I say, the High Court dealing with the other case will have before it all the facts that are relevant to that case. We have none of those facts before us. We do


not discuss a case which is before the High Court, but we can proceed, as we are entitled to do, to deal with the case of Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. Silverman: With great respect, Sir, the difficulty in that is the real difficulty. One can understand that in the course of the debate one ought not to refer at all to the other case, but every single thing that is said in support of this Motion will be relevant, whether the other case is mentioned or not, to the actual issue on exactly the same footing in the Ulster High Court on the side of the petitioner, and everything said against the Government Motion today will be an argument on the other side. One would think it inconceivable, if the House decides this Motion one way or another while the other case is still undecided, that counsel in that case on one or the other side will not pray in aid whatever decision the House of Commons makes today on precisely and exactly similar facts.
It seems, therefore, that even if one refrains from mentioning the other case in the course of the debate, that does not carry with it any guarantee that we are not, nevertheless, offending against our own law, and are not trying to decide and not discussing in the House of Commons points of law that are, in fact, still awaiting judicial determination in the courts. The mere fact that the name of the petitioner or the person concerned in the case in the Ulster High Court is a different person from the person concerned in this Motion does not make the two matters independent. They are in every other respect the same.

Mr. Speaker: That is precisely the same point in another way. I think that the two cases are quite distinct. The High Court is bound to proceed upon the evidence relevant to the particular case before it and not upon what happens here in another case. I think the two cases are quite distinct and that we can proceed upon the Motion before us.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Further to that point of order. There is one thing here which worries me and makes me feel that we might get into some difficulty. I understand that the two men were jointly charged together. Now, what the Ulster petitioner is asking the court to say is that in that case it was a valid election but there was one

candidature invalid, so that the result of that election was that somebody was elected. Here we are being asked to say that this was an invalid election and nobody was elected. If we come to this decision here, before the Ulster case is tried, are we not getting into certain difficulties, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: I do not see any difficulty at all. What we are pronouncing upon is the case of Mr. Mitchell. The court trying the other case has other issues before it and another person. According to what the hon. and learned Member has said, it is being asked to decide another question. It is nothing to do with us. But, equally, what we do here is no concern of the courts.

Mr. Frank Bowles: Supposing that the petitioner is unsuccessful in the High Court in Ulster, what shall we do, Mr. Speaker? Obviously, the Government will move a similar Motion, as they are doing today, when that case is over, and, in effect, we might be overruling the High Court in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. In the second place, the House is quite entitled to take cognisance of this Motion, no matter what anybody does outside.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: Mr. Speaker, I am still in doubt as to how these cases can be, as you say, distinct. These two men were tried jointly. They were tried for the same offence in the same court by the same judge on the same day at the same moment. They both behaved in exactly the same fashion in the court. The evidence against them was identical. It was the same evidence. Therefore, if this House comes to a decision on one, surely we are telling the High Court of Northern Ireland that it should come to the same decision on the other. Surely, therefore, it would be more prudent for us not to discuss this matter today but to wait until the High Court in Northern Ireland has come to its own decision. What could we lose by delaying this discussion until the High Court has come to its decision?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has given us a lot of information about the trial, none of which is before us in the way of evidence. What happened in the trial is irrelevant to this Motion. We are


being asked to consider a Motion moved about a definite person for a definite reason. The debate is confined to that. I do not see that the two cases at all conflict with each other.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully suggest that it is very important to divide the inessentials in this matter from the essentials. May I say, with respect, that you appear to place great reliance upon the fact that the names of the two men are different? But surely that is an inessential fact, and the fundamentals and essentials are those which are set out in the first part of the Motion, as my hon. Friend has said.
The two men were guilty of felony. The two were sentenced to penal servitude. The two are imprisoned under that sentence, and it is suggested that one is incapable of being elected to this House and the other is not. In the event of a certain course being taken in the Belfast court, that decision may well be treated as a precedent governing this particular case. Would it not stultify this House and put it in an impossible position if we discuss this matter and determine it on that basis, and then the court in Belfast takes that course? I suggest that the reasonable, rational and proper thing would be to postpone this discussion, to regard this as sub judice until after the proceedings in the Belfast court have been heard.

Mr. Speaker: That is just the same point again. I am not influenced by the fact that the names are different. What influences me is that the two men are different men.

Mr. S. Silverman: Let me put the point in this way, Sir. There are two sides to the question whether the matter is sub judice or not. One is whether the House of Commons would be embarrassed in its debates. The other is whether the court would be embarrassed in its decision. Even if the House could discuss Mr. Mitchell's case without mentioning the other case at all, and, therefore, not being in any way embarrassed by Mr. Mitchell's case, it is not equally clear that the judge trying the other case would not be embarrassed by our discussions which are discussions about the very point which he is being called upon to decide. It is

out of respect to the court and with the intention of not embarrassing or influencing or prejudicing a judicial decision that the House refrains from discussing this matter until the judicial determination.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think I need follow that point too far. I do not think that any of the judges would be embarrassed by what is said in this House about an entirely different case. The hon. Member tells us that the cases arise out of the same facts, but the only case about which we have any evidence before us is this case, and the evidence before us is evidence produced in the Return to an Address from this House.

Mr. Paget: May I add one word, because I do not know if I made my point clear? If the Ulster case is successful, that means that Mr. Mitchell was not elected at all but that somebody else, his opponent, was successful. If we carry the second part of this Motion we shall be ordering a by-election in a constituency which is already validly filled.

Mr. Speaker: As I understand from what has been told me about the case that is before the courts, though I have no evidence about that, they are asking for a form of relief which consists in a declaration that the other man was elected. There is no such case before us here at all. We are entitled to take note as a House of Commons of a vacancy in our numbers and to proceed to fill it up. We are entitled to do that. In fact, it is our duty. Therefore, there is no reason why the House should be further detained from considering what the Attorney-General has to say.

3.47 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move,
That Thomas J. Mitchell, returned as a Member for Mid-Ulster, having been adjudged guilty of felony, and sentenced to penal servitude for ten years, and being now imprisoned under such sentence, is incapable of being elected or returned as a Member of this House:
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown for Northern Ireland, to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for Mid-Ulster, in the room of Thomas J. Mitchell, adjudged and sentenced as aforesaid.
The House will see that the Motion consists of two parts, and I will deal with each part separately. The first consists


of a Motion for a declaration by this House
That Thomas J. Mitchell, returned as a Member for Mid-Ulster, … is incapable of being elected or returned as a Member of this House.
The House has received a Return which shows that Thomas J. Mitchell was convicted at Belfast Assizes on 30th November, 1954, on three charges of treason-felony under the Treason Felony Act, 1848, and that on 15th December, 1954, he was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently.
Now I come to the consequences that flow from those convictions and sentences. Section 2 of the Forfeiture Act, 1870, provides—and I will quote the important words, leaving out the immaterial ones:
… that if any person hereafter convicted of treason or felony, for which he shall be sentenced to death [penal servitude] or any term of imprisonment [with hard labour, or] exceeding twelve months, shall
lose any office he holds. Then the Statute goes on:
and such person shall become, and [until he shall have suffered a punishment to which he has been sentenced, … or shall receive a free pardon from Her Majesty), shall continue thenceforth incapable of … being elected, or sitting, or voting as a member of either House of Parliament …
So by Act of Parliament, Thomas J. Mitchell having been convicted of felony and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment was
incapable … of being elected, or sitting, or voting as a member
of this House.

Mr. John Rankin: Why was he allowed to stand?

The Attorney-General: I will deal with that point in a moment.
May I refer to the first part of the Amendment which has been tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)? The Amendment asks for the appointment of a Select Committee
to examine into the precedents in the law of Parliament"—
I do not quite know what is meant by that expression—
relevant to the return of Mr. Thomas J. Mitchell for Mid-Ulster and to report to the House whether any and what amendments are required …

I suppose that the reference to amendments must be taken to mean amendments to the law of Parliament but, under the law of this country, by Act of Parliament, Mr. Mitchell was incapable of being elected. Therefore, I submit to the House that there is no point in the appointment of a Select Committee for the purposes stated in the Amendment. Not only is the law clear, but I think that I should also add that the precedents since 1870 conform to the law as laid down by the Forfeiture Act, to which I have referred.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am obliged to the Attorney-General for allowing me to intervene. Is not the House being asked next Friday to do the very thing which the Attorney-General has just told the House it is unnecessary to do? It is not only people who are in the position of Mr. Mitchell who are declared incapable of being elected or returned. There are four or five people who were elected or returned and who have been declared not to have been capable of being so, and the Government are inviting the House next Friday to amend the law to remove that disqualification. Therefore, the first part of the Amendment asks no more than that the House should do in this case what it is already going to do in a number of other cases next Friday.

The Attorney-General: I should have thought that there was a very clear distinction between the kind of disqualification which is contained in that Bill, which we shall have the opportunity of discussing on Friday, and disqualification effected by Act of Parliament of someone who has been convicted of a felony and sentenced to more than twelve months' imprisonment.

Mr. Silverman: No difference in law.

The Attorney-General: The law stands. The Forfeiture Act is still the law.
The second part of the Motion asks that you, Mr. Speaker, issue your Warrant
to the Clerk of the Crown for Northern Ireland, to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for Mid-Ulster, in the room of Thomas J. Mitchell, adjudged and sentenced as aforesaid.
Erskine May states, on page 186, that
The House is, in fact, bound to take notice of any legal disabilities affecting its Members, and to issue writs in the rooms of Members adjudged to be incapable of sitting


The words are:
… to take notice … and to issue writs …
Erskine May goes on to cite instances where the House has so acted, declaring the incapacity to sit and ordering the issue of the new Writ. I quote from Erskine May this passage:
In such cases as these, the jurisdiction and duty of the House cannot be questioned, as the incapacity of a felon is expressly declared by statute.
It is in view of these precedents and the statements in Erskine May that I move the second part of the Motion. Indeed, in my submission, it would not be right to leave this seat vacant for the duration of this Parliament.

Mr. Paget: What has been worrying me a little is the question: is the seat vacant? If, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has stated, Mr. Mitchell was incapable of being a candidate, there was only one candidate at this election. Why is he not elected, and why is he not the Member here? I ask that for information.

The Attorney-General: I will deal with that point, which the hon. and learned Member has made more than once already this afternoon, but I prefer to follow the order in which I was intending to take this matter.
Those are the reasons why I move the Motion and ask that the Amendment should be rejected. One or two questions, in addition to those raised today, were raised when my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal made his statement. I should like to refer to them. The first question was raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). She asked the question which the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) has raised again today—how it was that if Mr. Mitchell was incapable of being elected he ever came to be nominated. The answer is that a returning officer cannot refuse to accept a nomination on the ground that the candidate is disqualified.
He is concerned with the validity of the nomination paper, and the only grounds on which he can refuse a nomination are set out in Rule 13 (2) of the Parliamentary Elections Rules, which form part of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, namely:
(a) that the particulars of the candidate or the persons subscribing the paper are not as required by law; and

(b) that the paper is not subscribed as so required.

Mr. Bowles: Mr. Bowles rose—

The Attorney-General: I should like to deal with this point first. I will certainly try to deal with all points.
I am sure that a moment's consideration will convince hon. Members that it would be quite impracticable to give the returning officer power to decide that a candidate who has been properly nominated is disqualified. Time would not permit of a proper adjudication of that problem. One might find all kinds of difficulties arising. I am sure that the House will agree that one could not leave it to the returning officer to decide on the qualification of the candidate. All that he can decide is whether the nomination paper is in order.

Mr. Bowles: I think that we on this side of the House all agree with the Attorney-General's last remarks, but what will happen if Mr. Mitchell gets nominated and elected again? Will we have to keep on doing this?

The Attorney-General: That is the second hypothetical question which the hon. Member has asked today. It depends, of course, upon what candidates are nominated but, assuming that the same candidate is nominated, two different courses might follow.
One is the possibility that we should have to move for the issue of another Writ. Another possibility—and I say this in view of the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—is that the defeated candidate might claim the seat by petition.

Mr. S. Silverman: He might not.

The Attorney-General: He might not, but again he might. Where a seat is claimed by petition, it is not the custom of the House to move for the issue of a new Writ where a petition is pending and, of course, the petition claiming a seat is based upon the ground that the votes cast for the person who has the majority—

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. I do not want to prevent the discussion upon which the Attorney-General is now embarking, but I should like it to be clear that it will be equally in order for the debate as a whole. The Attorney-General is now explaining what the petition in the


Ulster High Court is about. I may not agree with his account of that matter. Will we be entitled to discuss that, or is it clear that we cannot?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Attorney-General had only got as far as a general statement of the law and had made no reference to the case in the Ulster High Court at all.

The Attorney-General: I had only intended to make a general reference to the law and was about to do so in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton.
I repeat that by a Petition the seat can be claimed on the ground that the votes cast for the candidate who has secured the majority of the votes are, in fact, votes thrown away. When the time for a petition being lodged has expired, as it has in the case of Mid-Ulster, the only course then remaining is to move for the issue of a new Writ.
I hope I have dealt shortly with some of the points which have been raised in the course of this discussion. I trust, also, that I have made it clear that the first part of this Motion is clearly established by the Return this House has received and, secondly, that in these circumstances it is in accordance with precedent that one moves for the issue of a new Writ.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
a Select Committee be appointed to examine into the precedents in the law of Parliament relevant to the return of Mr. Thomas J. Mitchell for Mid-Ulster and to report to the House whether any and what amendments are required:
That no Warrant for a New Writ shall be issued for the said constituency during the present Parliament.
The Attorney-General expressed a little curiosity about some of the terms in which the Amendment is drafted. He said, quite correctly, that the Motion he has moved is in accordance with precedent. The Amendment which I am now moving is in accordance with precedent, too. The Amendment consists of two parts. The first part is the Amendment which was moved—I admit, before the

passage of the Forfeiture for Felony Act of 1870—in the precisely similar case of Mr. Michael Davitt. The second part is the Amendment which was moved to the corresponding Motion—long after the Forfeiture for Felony Act of 1870—in the case of Colonel Lynch.
The House will remember that the case of Mr. Davitt was almost an exact parallel to that of Mr. Mitchell. In the case of Colonel Lynch the situation was that he had taken part with Boers against Her Majesty's Forces in the Boer War and had been elected by a constituency in Ireland with full knowledge of that fact. The Amendment which is represented by the second part of my Amendment was on that occasion moved by a Tory Member, whose argument was that the constituency had been so ill-behaved that it had known that this man was a traitor, it had known that he had actually levied war against the Sovereign and had actually taken sides with the Queen's enemies, and that, knowing all those facts, it had, nevertheless, voted for him. In the opinion of that hon. Member the constituency would be better unrepresented in those circumstances, as a mark of the disapproval of the House of the choice of the constituency. So, at any rate, there is some precedent for the Amendment I have moved.
Before going on to deal with the more technical side, I would invite the House to look for a moment at the common sense of the situation. It is all very well to say that what will follow the passing of this Motion, if it is passed, is hypothetical. It may be hypothetical, but something will happen if we pass this Motion and it is mere prudence for us to consider what the possible alternative is and what the situation of Parliament would be on either view.
Sometimes one detects in newspaper comment and sometimes in comment in this House—it has not been entirely absent from our discussions this afternoon—a sense of fun creeping in. It is a situation which appeals to the sense of humour of some hon. Members. I suppose it is not altogether new in Irish affairs and I suppose it does no very great damage to politics if we carry a sense of humour into our discussions from time to time, but the real question is: who is to have the best and the last laugh if we proceed with the Motion and


the doctrine presented by the Government?
This House never looks very dignified when it is having a row with a constituency as to whom the constitutency ought to elect to Parliament. There is no case in history in which Parliament has won such a contest. I suppose it is right to say that Parliament ought never to win such a contest. Why, then, should we invite a contest now, unless we are under grave compulsion to invite it? What advantage to the House of Commons, what advantage to the Constitution, what advantage to democracy, is being sought by this Motion?
If the Attorney-General has his way, a new Writ will be issued. If other people are as loyal to tradition in these matters as the Government wishes us to be, they may very well renominate this gentleman. We are almost inciting them to do it. We are saying to them, "You may know whom you would prefer to elect, but we say you must not elect him; you must elect somebody else." The reply from every English constituency—and, I suppose one might say without disrespect a fortiori, from every Irish constituency—would be, "Be hanged to that for a tale. We will elect whom we wish."
Suppose they do. It is possible, no doubt that the defeated candidate may claim the seat by a petition. He may even succeed. If he succeeds he may come here, take the oath, make speeches and take part in votes. On whose behalf? Nominally, on behalf of mid-Ulster, but in circumstances in which all mid-Ulster, all Ulster, all Ireland, all the United Kingdom and all the world knows he is falsely representing himself to be speaking for the constituency, the constituency having repeatedly declared, by a majority, that whatever else it wanted it did not want him. Is it really contended that our Constitution, our Parliamentary democracy, our representative system, would be advantaged by that? What good is sought, what good is won, if that is the result?
It is possible that no such claim will be made. If no such claim be made, presumably the same precedents will exercise the same compulsive powers on the minds of the Leader of the House and the Attorney-General as on this occasion because there would be no

means then of distinguishing between Mr. Mitchell elected the second time and Mr. Mitchell elected the first time. Will the Attorney-General then come back with a new Motion, asking for a new Writ to be issued and a third election? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman never heard of John Wilkes?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Or Daniel O'Connell?

Mr. Silverman: Or a great many other people.
There are other alternatives. There is the possibility that somebody else, and not Mr. Mitchell, may be elected, somebody who has not been convicted and who is not in prison, but somebody who takes exactly the same view about all these matters as Mr. Mitchell, and who, presumably, will not come here at all.
There is something to be said in this connection about the Return on which the Attorney-General relies. It is a one-sided Return; it is an ex-parte statement. We know that Mr. Mitchell did all these things because we have a paper, printed in the Stationery Office, to say so, and nothing more, so far as I understand.
So far as the proceedings are concerned, they were proceedings in which this gentleman refused to open his mouth at all. None of these matters has ever been investigated. Nobody knows on what evidence they are based. He refused to recognise the court. One understands that he would have refused to recognise Parliament. We are making all this commotion and raising all these important constitutional questions without the slightest need because, if I understand the matter correctly, if we had never done anything at all, no one would ever have heard of Mr. Mitchell again. He was elected not to come, so if the Government have their way this will go on and on and on. For what? I suggest that, before I come to the technical or legal side of the matter, as a matter of policy the Government might well reconsider this situation.
We are not now living in the middle of the nineteenth century but in the middle of the twentieth century. Questions of free elections are being looked at in many circumstances in many parts of the world. If it is right to take the view that when a man is in conflict with


the Government or the régime of his country, when he refuses to recognise it, when he commits acts of sabotage against it, when he levies war in order to overturn it, when he is prosecuted and convicted for those offences, he is then incapable of being elected to a free Parliament, what are we to say in Geneva about East Germany, Eastern Europe, and all the questions in which this matter of free elections is being looked at with such care and in such difficult circumstances all over the world?
I am not seeking to say that the things are the same; not at all. I am only saying that they are quite different because we happen to be the Government or the régime or the political system offended against. These things look very different in other countries. The Motion before the House will look very different in the United States from what it appears in Ulster or in London. These are substantial questions. I think that the Government have been hasty in what they have done. I think that they have not considered all the implications in all parts of the world of taking this rigid, legalistic line which they are inviting the House to adopt this afternoon, and which I hope the House will not take.

Mr. Raymond Gower: When the hon. Gentleman was quoting two very interesting precedents, I wanted to ask him whether he had considered the direct precedent in 1875 of Mr. John Mitchel, who was elected for Tipperary, and who was unseated on a Motion of this kind. He was then re-elected and unseated on petition. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that that is the best precedent before the House? Secondly, has he considered the force of the injunction in Erskine May that the House must take notice of it?

Mr. Silverman: As to whether the House must or must not take notice of it, that comes in the second part of what I have to say, and I will refer to it. As to the precedent to which the hon. Member referred, I am not aware of it, I have not gone into it, and I am not prepared to express an opinion about it, except to say that even if the hon. Member is right in thinking that to be unseated on a petition after a second election is the best way of dealing with the matter, it is no guarantee, even if he is right, that that

course will be followed if the House passes this Motion.
I have no more sources of information than anyone else, but I understand that the decision by the defeated candidate not to petition in the Mid-Ulster case was a deliberate decision taken by him and his political friends and associates on principle, because they thought it better to do that for reasons that do not concern me. There is no reason to suppose that in a second election they would think differently.
I now come to the second part of what I have to say. I shall not take long, but I want to make the point which I have in mind. I can understand very well that the Government might say, "We recognise all these difficulties but we have not been short-sighted or hasty or imprudent at all. We are doing this because we are compelled to do it." That is the point which the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) was asking me about just now, in his reference to Erskine May—that we must take some notice of it.
We must take some notice of it when a man comes here, takes the oath, sits among us, and speaks and votes. That is not what happened in this case, and, on all the indications, will not, in fact, happen in this case. Unless it does happen, the House is by no means compelled to take any step about it at all. Of course, it is not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman invited me to say that there was a very great difference between a man who was to be declared incapable of being elected because he was a convicted felon and a man who was incompetent to be elected or take his place among us because he held, or was held to hold, an office of profit under the Crown. In principle, there is no difference at all.
In both cases, the man concerned is declared by law incapable. We have had many such cases in the last ten years. In every one of them we have referred it to a Select Committee to consider; not merely to consider whether an offence had been committed, but also to consider what action to recommend to the House if an offence had been found to have been committed. In the case, a few years ago, of Mr. Macmanaway, a Select Committee inquired into it and came to a conclusion. It was debated here, and then the Privy Council held that it had


come to a wrong conclusion altogether. In a number of other cases the Select Committee—and there were various Select Committees and I was on one myself—came quite clearly to the conclusion that the gentleman concerned was incapable of being elected, but recommended that an Act of Parliament should be passed to put the matter right.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: In the case of Captain Peter Baker, for instance, who was convicted of a felony, the matter was not referred to a Select Committee.

Mr. Silverman: I know. I am coming precisely to that kind of case. When Captain Baker was elected, he was perfectly capable of being elected, and was rightly elected. But the House has always taken, and I hope always will take, a very strict view of the moral obligations of Members of Parliament. If we come here and set ourselves up as legislators, certainly there is a minimum standard of common honesty which we may well be expected to observe. That is quite right and the House has always insisted on its rights; but it is not bound to do so. It need not do so unless it thinks fit.
What I want to say to hon. and right hon. Members now, in the middle of the twentieth century, is that a man may be in jail for perfectly honourable reasons. There are many hon. Members of this House—I am one of them myself—who spent some time in prison in the First World War because we thought it would be wrong to take any part in it at all. Some of those Members sit on the Opposition Front Bench, some of them have held high office under the Crown—and why not? When one finds world statesmen and world scientists combining now to tell us that only the utter renunciation of war can save mankind from complete destruction, whether we still hold exactly the same opinions that we held forty years ago or not, we may still say that we are not ashamed of having held them and are not ashamed of having paid the price of holding them and standing by them, as we would again in the same circumstances.
The mere fact that a man has been convicted in a court is not necessarily a dishonourable thing. [An HON. MEMBER: "Patriotic felons."] Certainly; there have been

a great many patriotic felons in the history of the world and there will go on being a great many while humanity retains any confidence in any of its ideals.
However wrong this man Mitchell may be, no one doubts that whatever he did or whatever he did not do was done not for private profit or greed or selfish motives of any kind but, if one likes so to describe it, in a mistaken spirit of superimposed martyrdom to express an idea of liberty which seemed the right idea to him, whatever it seems to us. Therefore, there is no necessary moral turpitude involved in the facts, if they be facts, contained in the White Paper and no such compulsion as arises in this House, where a man obviously does things which make him worthy on moral grounds to be a Member of the House of Commons.
I come to my final point. Rather than to go on with this recurrent farce of unrepresentative election after unrepresentative election, I say that it is far better that the House should resolve that during this present Parliament no Writ should issue. These people have decided that they do not want to be represented here. They have elected a man for that reason.

Captain Orr: Surely there is a difference. Had they wished to elect a man for that reason, they could have elected a man who was an abstentionist: in other words, someone who was not a convicted felon.

Mr. Silverman: They could have done, just as the electors in the hon. and gallant Member's constituency could, if they had chosen, have elected somebody else; but the fact with which we are dealing is that they did not. They elected this man, and they elected him not because he could not come because he was in jail but because it was part of their policy to say, "We really ought to belong to Southern Ireland. We do not want to be represented at Westminster and we will declare our political faith by electing somebody who undertakes not to go there." That is what happened. If they really have declared, in a properly conducted election, by a very large majority, that they do not want anyone to come here and represent them, why in the world should we compel them?
Why should we go through the farce of electing man after man, or, possibly, allowing the seat to be claimed by a man


who had a minority of the votes coming here and pretending to represent Mid-Ulster when, quite clearly, he does not represent Mid-Ulster? I say to the House that it is very much better in practice, very much more convenient and much sounder Parliamentary democracy for the House to resolve that no Writ shall issue, in the hope that before another Parliament is elected all these questions may have been peaceably resolved.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to second the Amendment.
In view of the full way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has proposed the Amendment, I shall be able, in rising to second it, to do so very shortly. First, I should like to deal with a point made by the Attorney-General. In his quotation from Erskine May, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to suggest—I hope he did not do it deliberately—that the House was under some obligation to pass the Motion which he invited the House to pass. That is not the fact at all. What Erskine May says is this:
The House is, in fact, bound to take notice of any legal disabilities affecting its Members, and to issue writs in the rooms of Members adjudged to be incapable of sitting.
I think the Attorney-General will agree that that means, "in the room of Members adjudged by this House to be incapable of sitting." We are bound to take notice of the situation, but not necessarily to accept the Attorney-General's Motion.
As my hon. Friend has said, there is no difference in principle between the duty of this House when a Member is ineligible either because he has held an office of profit under the Crown or because he has been convicted of a felony. It is a matter of which the House has to take cognisance and has to come to a decision; but the House is free to come to whatever decision it wishes, and it has to do so partly in the light of precedents but, as my hon. Friend has said, more particularly in the light of common sense, and of the realities of the situation. Therefore, this afternoon it is competent either for the House, having heard the facts, to accept the Attorney-General's Motion or, as I think would be far more sensible, to accept the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend.
If we accept the Amendment, what the House then does is to refer the entire matter to a Select Committee so that we could then, at any rate, whatever action might subsequently be taken, have the whole of the relevant facts before us. One of the reasons why I urge the House not to accept the Attorney-General's Motion today is that at present we do not have all the relevant facts before us. If the matter goes to a Select Committee, we should have the relevant facts.
I do not want to rely on purely technical reasons, but there are certain technical flaws in the Attorney-General's Motion. As you, Mr. Speaker, have said, we have to be very technical in these matters and we have to rely strictly on the evidence before us. When we had the case the other day of the failure of the Postmaster-General to deliver the Return in the case of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), we had to have a special Return from the Clerk of the Crown.
This matter may be technical, but why it is premature for the House to come to a decision today, and why it would be better to have the facts investigated by a Select Committee, is because, first, nobody in the House has yet seen what Return has been made. There is no proof of identity. There is no evidence that the Return of the elected person at the top of the poll relates to the same person as that mentioned in the Return filed by the Home Secretary about the Mr. Mitchell who has been convicted.
If it be assumed that that is the case, there is still another aspect of the matter on which the Select Committee would be able to take evidence. Has there been any application for a pardon? After all, this is a pardonable offence and the precedents show that it is within the prerogative of the Crown to grant a pardon in this kind of case if one is asked for. I am not suggesting that it is likely, but these are facts which should be inquired into. Furthermore, we have no evidence from Mr. Mitchell himself, who was elected head of the poll.
If the matter were referred to the Select Committee we should have an opportunity of considering the precedents. I suggest to the Attorney-General, therefore, that while the precedents are important, no one would suggest that this House is bound by them. My view is


that the precedents do not require the House on this occasion to accept the Motion.
First, the facts are quite different. All the precedents come from the last century—over fifty years ago—when there was no separate Parliament in Northern Ireland, when there was no Irish Free State, when the whole condition of affairs as between this country and Ireland was quite different. Since then the constitutional position has changed. Eire is now a foreign country vis-à-vis Great Britain. There is a separate Parliament in Northern Ireland. There has been a complete change, therefore, in the temper and atmosphere of relations between this country and Ireland.
There are people in these two constituencies who, as my hon. Friend has said, definitely desire to elect someone at the head of the poll whom they know will boycott this House. They are entitled, if they choose, to do that as a matter of protest. If democracy means anything, it surely means that any electorate in any constituency by a majority can choose someone who will carry out their wishes There is no doubt whatever what are the predominant wishes of the people of Mid-Ulster. If they wish to elect someone who will not come to this House, they cannot carry out that wish better than by electing someone who is in prison for the next ten years.
I am not arguing whether that is a good thing for them to do or whether it is a bad thing. All I am arguing is that representative Government, as I understand it, means that an electorate is free to elect someone to carry out their wishes and that if we accept the Motion it seems to me that we are depriving them of their rights and defeating their chief objective.
I am not basing my argument merely on the present temper of Irish politics and relations between this country and Eire. I think it is impossible to reach a decision on this matter without referring to the related case of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. That matter is sub judice and we do not know what decision the High Court of Northern Ireland will reach. Yet we cannot be oblivious of the fact that here, in two neighbouring constituencies, a precisely similar electoral result occurred. In the

case of Mid-Ulster, Mr. Mitchell had a majority over Mr. Beattie of 260; in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Mr. Clarke, also a convicted felon, had a majority of 261 over Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor. Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor is petitioning to the High Court of Northern Ireland, we do not know what the result of the petition will be and we are not concerned while it is sub judice.
For some unexplained reason there has been no petition by Mr. Beattie in this case—and that answers the question put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). He pointed out not merely the inconsistent results that will arise if we accept the Motion, but the incongruous position that will ensue. We may well find that in Fermanagh and South Tyrone the High Court of Northern Ireland decides that the defeated candidate shall be returned to Parliament. If that happens I reserve my right to comment on that at the time and to say whether this House should accept that decision or not. Personally, I would not be prepared to accept the decision of the High Court of Northern Ireland if that is the result, but I am not commenting—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The time may come for that, but this is not the time for it.

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was merely reserving my right if that time should come, and saying that in that hypothetical case we should have the most astonishing and contradictory result, because in that event we should find a defeated candidate claiming to sit here.
In this case, without any full examination by a Select Committee of what the precedents are, we shall be declaring the seat vacant and we shall be inviting a new election in which, presumably, either Mr. Mitchell can stand again or somebody else in a Belfast gaol can stand, or somebody who is not in gaol can stand who will presumably be elected if he is determined, if elected, not to come to this House but to protest against the present partition of Ireland.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The best way to protest is to come here and do so.

Mr. Fletcher: The noble Lord says that the best way is to come here and


protest. That may be the view of the noble Lord, but it is for the electorate in Northern Ireland to consider what they think is the best way to protest.
I am not canvassing the question whether their protest or their policy is wise or sensible. I am not concerned with that. I am concerned to point out that, as a matter of elementary constitutional principle, it must be for them to decide what they consider is the best and the most effective method of protest, and if they chose to do it in that way why should we want to thwart their wish?
This is not the same case, as it was in 1870, when the cases of John Mitchel and Davitt and Rossa and the others were being decided. In those days there was no self-government in any part of Ireland, and Irish policies were quite different, but today I should have thought this House would have wished, for motives affecting its own self-respect and also from motives affecting the relationship between this country and Ireland, not to do anything unnecessarily to embitter or complicate the relations between the two countries.
Bearing in mind that there are these two completely parallel cases—the case pending in the High Court of Northern Ireland which is sub judice and, for some unexplained reason, no petition in this Mid-Ulster case—I ask myself and I ask the House on what grounds of pressure or haste or urgency can it be necessary or desirable for the House to reach a decision on this matter today?
Would it not be far better, as we have done in all the other cases of disqualification through offices of profit, to have the facts brought out by a Select Committee so that all sides and aspects of this complicated and debatable subject can be inquired into? Then at leisure, with those facts before it, the House can come to a decision. For those reasons, therefore, I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Montgomery Hyde: I must confess that there are certain features about the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) which I find attractive. However, I cannot agree with most of the arguments which he adduced in favour of it, except

his argument based on common sense. As against that, I find myself up against what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General about the legal position, as the facts of the present case require the law to be applied. I think that, from the point of view of the constitutional precedents, that argument is unanswerable, but it does not seem to me to be an argument altogether in conformity with the principles of common sense.
I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot support, or give more than qualified support to, the Amendment, although I have some sympathy with it, particularly the second part of it, which suggests that there should be no new Writ for the Mid-Ulster constituency, for the simple reason that I believe that to be the wish of virtually the whole of the constituents of that division.
It is always a serious matter when this House is asked to set aside the expression of the will of the majority of the electors in any constituency. In the case of Mid-Ulster, I think that perhaps the House should be aware of some of the facts which have led up to this rather unusual position, which perhaps are not generally known.
Before I mention them, I should like to say a very brief word on the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. The hon. Member has referred to one or two of the precedents. I have taken the trouble to look them up, and I must say that they all seem to me to be quite cast-iron. They are all cases of Irishmen with similar political inclinations to Mr. Thomas Mitchell, and they were all convicted of treason-felony and their certificates of conviction were brought before this House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), in an interjection, mentioned the case of John Mitchel, in 1875, which is superficially a case not dissimilar to the present one because there were two elections. In the case of John Mitchel, in 1875, the first election was an unopposed return, and there was no defeated candidate. Then, on the Motion of the Prime Minister of the day, Mitchel was held to be disqualified, but his supporters put him up a second time. On the occasion of the second election, he was opposed by a Conservative candidate, and again he was returned. The defeated


Conservative presented a petition, but, while the petition was before the court, John Mitchel died.
That case is fundamentally different from the present case, because John Mitchel made it perfectly clear that if he was elected he would come here and take his seat in this House, whereas Mr. Thomas Mitchell made it clear in the Election address which was issued from his prison cell, that on no account, even if released, would he come to this House.
In the previous cases, as I have said, the disqualified candidate has usually been willing to take his place, but, in the present case, Mr. Mitchell not only announced his intention of boycotting this House if he was elected, but made it known to the electors that that was his intention. The electors were also advised by the unsuccessful candidate that any votes cast for Mr. Mitchell would be void and thrown away. Notwithstanding that, the electors who voted for Mr. Mitchell did so when perfectly conscious that their votes would be thrown away and that they were voting for someone who had no intention of coming to this House.
As far as the position of the defeated candidate—Mr. Beattie—in Mid-Ulster was concerned, he might have taken a similar course to that taken in the neighbouring constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. He might have presented an election petition, but he and his friends in the Unionist Association for Mid-Ulster, representing the 29,000 electors who voted for him, after very careful consideration decided that they would take no such action, and would not present an Election petition.
Apparently, they were under the impression—as it turned out subsequently, a mistaken one—that if they took no action, then the position might remain precisely as it would have done had the candidate returned at the top of the poll not been a disqualified person but merely an abstentionist.
What, then, will happen if the seat is declared vacant and a by-election takes place? The Sinn Fein organisation has already announced its intention of putting up Mr. Mitchell again as its candidate. The Unionists in the division may well—in fact. I think it is extremely likely that they will—run the defeated candidate again. In the event of Mr. Mitchell being returned for a second time, it is not

beyond the bounds of possibility that the Mid-Ulster Unionist Association will decide again not to present an Election petition, so that this business which we are considering today will start all over again. Thus, it looks as if the electors of Mid-Ulster are faced with the prospect of a seemingly endless series of by-elections
I do not know whether that is a good thing, nor would I wish to predict how this matter will resolve itself. But I will venture one remark with some confidence. Only in Ireland could such a thing as this take place, and perhaps it is as well, if Parliamentary democracy is to survive, that it is unlikely to happen anywhere else in these islands.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: I am afraid I could not follow all the points made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde), because I did not see that all were relevant.
I do not know, for example, why it was that he raised the point that Mr. Mitchell had announced from his prison cell that, even in the event of his being elected, he would boycott this House. I do not see how that is relevant to this business, because other Members elected for the same constituency have followed the same policy, and the electors, if they wish to elect persons who will abstain from attending this House, are quite entitled to do so.
In 1935, for example, two people were elected for the constituency of Fermanagh and Tyrone. They were not Sinn Fein but Nationalist Members, and they refused to come here for ten years. In 1945, however, when a Labour Government was elected to this House, they came here with great enthusiasm. During the ensuing years, they saw that their enthusiasm had been somewhat misplaced, and they did not get from the Labour Government the things which they thought they were entitled to get from such an administration.
No one who follows the politics of Northern Ireland will ever be surprised that any Nationalist, any anti-Unionist, or any Sinn Feiner elected for this constituency in future will refuse to come here, because, if they got nothing from the Labour Government, they are likely to get less than nothing from a Tory Government.
I am neither a lawyer nor a historian, and the Forfeiture for Felony Act, 1870, and the various precedents to which allusion has been made are matters about which I can speak with no authority at all. However, after listening closely to the short and rather dry speech by the Attorney-General, I concluded that he was trying to persuade the House in this way. He said that if we took the decision which he asked us to take, certain hypothetical things might occur. He said that Mr. Mitchell might be nominated again and might be declared elected again and the House might again have to go through what it is going through now, or a petition might be presented to the High Court, in Belfast.
There are some things, however, which most certainly will happen, and I would draw the attention of the House and the Attorney-General to them. There is nothing whatever hypothetical about them. We ought to consider the effect upon the electorate of Mid-Ulster and not merely the effect upon Mr. Mitchell or upon us. I do not happen to agree with the policy of Mr. Mitchell. However, I will not criticise or attack him in any way. I would certainly not attack any man who was beginning to spend the best part of his manhood in prison. I would not attack any man, no matter how mistaken I believed him to be, who was prepared to make such an enormous sacrifice for ideals in which he believed.
However, the 29,737 people who voted for Mr. Mitchell were all of one mind on one thing, and that was that they did not want the Unionist candidate elected. They may have disagreed on many other things. I am firmly convinced that the great majority of the people who voted for Mr. Mitchell are not in favour of his policy. We have here the strange situation of a young man being elected by the majority of the electors who themselves were not necessarily endorsing the policy of the candidate for whom they voted.
The majority of the people in Ireland—in the south as well as in the north—are against a policy of violence. I believe that the majority of those who voted for Mr. Mitchell are against violence, but they voted for him because it was their only way to make a protest. It was a gesture of defiance, an anti-Unionist gesture. It was the only gesture left to them. It was an action of anger and

frustration, and the anger and frustration will remain as long as the cause for the anger and frustration exists, and the cause is mainly the partition of Ireland into two.
What effect will the Motion, if carried, have upon the people who, although they voted for him, disagree with Mr. Mitchell? I am very much afraid that we shall be making converts to the cause of violence which Sinn Fein advocates. Since no normal democratic processes are open to these people, they may very well take the line that the only thing remaining for them to do is to follow the young men who want to adopt a policy of violence.
I should have thought that the less haste with which the House proceeded the better. I should have thought that this unseemly hurry and this refusal on the part of the Government even to set up a committee and make some inquiries to find some way out of the problem would have caused more converts to the cause of violence than any hon. Member would wish to happen.
That is why I ask the Government to reconsider the decision which the Attorney-General seems to have made about the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). It cannot possibly do any harm to have an inquiry, but it most certainly can do good. For these reasons, let us not proceed with this unseemly haste. Let the House accept the Amendment, and let us consider the matter and, by so doing, strengthen the democratic resolution of the people who voted for Mr. Mitchell, most of whom still prefer a democratic process to a violent solution.

4.57 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I will not presume to keep the attention of the House for very long. I am not acquainted with the part of the United Kingdom that we are discussing, and I have not been able to consult all the historical precedents. I have been able just to listen to the debate as it has proceeded.
I cannot say that I follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) in his claim that a Select Committee should be appointed. What the Government seem to have done is to follow simply and straightforwardly the due process of law according to constitutional usage. We


have a General Election. A candidate for a Northern Irish seat is elected. He is discovered to be in gaol, a convicted felon. The Act of 1870 immediately operates declaring him not to be legally a Member of this House. Then, as soon as can conveniently be arranged, the House debates a Motion to declare the seat vacant. That seems to me to be a perfectly normal procedure.

Mr. Delargy: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) drew attention to the pertinent fact that the Act of 1870 was passed when the state of Ireland was far from being what it is today, and the Act was not, and could not have been, intended to apply to these circumstances, because they did not then prevail and were never even dreamt of.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Gentleman is putting up a case for changing the law. Let us have a Private Member's Bill and see where we get with it.

Mr. Delargy: Let us have a committee of inquiry.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: We must deal with the law as it stands.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) spoke about electing a prisoner and referred to the intention of the electors of Mid-Ulster that the person whom they elected to Parliament should not come to the House but should remain in gaol, and that was considered to be a protest. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may be right in saying that that expresses the opinion of the people of Ulster, but it is not an argument for a responsible Member of this House to offer in debate.
Surely our proper attitude should be to see that the people of Mid-Ulster elect a man who will come to the House and seek every opportunity of debating the cause of Southern Ireland and the aspirations of Southern Ireland eventually to control the whole of Northern Ireland. After all, the famous dictum of Mr. Edmund Burke was that it is not right only to do one's duty; one must do one's duty with effect and energy. It is not right for the Northern Irish people or hon. Members of this House to say that it is correct for a man to be elected yet

remain in prison as a protest. The electorate should be able to elect a man to come here and secure for it politically what it wants.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the noble Lord consider that while it may be that that would be a wiser course—certainly, it is the course which the noble Lord prefers—it is a course which the overwhelming majority of the electors of Mid-Ulster have decided they do not want to take? Is it quite irrelevant that it is quite clear that they will not take it and have decided not to take it?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am about to come to the question of what the majority of the people of Mid-Ulster want.
The hon. Member devoted a great part of his speech—which, I must say, was very eloquent and very persuasive, as most of his speeches are—to saying that democracy must be seen to be working by people in East Europe, behind the Iron Curtain, and in the United States of America. I should have thought that the best way to show that democracy is working is to show that the due course of law is being adopted. If we are to convince the Russians, and the Americans for that matter, that democratic processes in this country work, and that the people of Mid-Ulster have a perfectly definite point of view about the future of Ulster in relation to the United Kingdom, we should carry on with the due course of law and let these messages flow out.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said that it was wrong for Parliament to do this thing at this time, that we must alter our point of view in relation to what was appropriate to the Geneva Conference, or to the aspirations of the people in East Germany. Of course, he is entirely wrong. It is for the law to prevail and not for Parliament to change the process, or bring about a different result, except by due passage of legislation. The law being what it is, and as we are bound to do what we are bound to do, I think that the Government are right to take the attitude which they have adopted.
Finally, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne asked what would happen if the process were repeated; what if this time there were a petition and the unsuccessful candidate were elected and the people of Mid-Ulster, therefore, did


not get the recognition of what they wanted. Is that not the experience of us all? Until the last Election I was elected against the wishes of about half of my constituents. In every constituency where there is more than one candidate the Member who is elected cannot pledge himself to act in accordance with the wishes of all his constituents when he is elected.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: We have already spent so much time hearing about the legal technicalities involved in the Motion and the Amendment that I believe that the non-legal Members of the House will by now have come to the conclusion that a Select Committee is needed so that every hon. Member will have a full opportunity of studying not only this case but the background in which the Motion has been presented. As far as I can see, there is nothing analogous to this in any previous precedent which has come before the House. I fail to see that there is any analogy at all with East Germany, or any of the Iron Curtain countries.
The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) argued that we must deal with the law as it stands, and that because the law says that a certain process must be carried out the House should meticulously carry it out to its very end. But that is precisely what the Government have not done in the previous cases which have been brought to the House, and which have gone before the Select Committee. During the last few weeks we have had no fewer than three hon. Members referred to a Select Committee, because they broke the law of 1707. If the law had gone to its logical conclusion, and we had followed the noble Lord's argument that we must deal with the law as it stands and carry it to its logical conclusion, every one of those hon. Members automatically would have been fined £500 a day for innumerable days.
In some of those cases, by now the fine would have so soared that the hon. Members would have had to borrow money from America to pay the fine. I presume that if the law is to be carried out automatically to its conclusion, if those hon. Members were not able to pay £500 a day, which would have accumulated into

a considerable fine, there would be an alternative prison sentence and I calculate that that would easily amount to the ten years' penal servitude which this Member is now undergoing. When the cases of the three hon. Members came up for consideration, the Attorney-General did not say that we must carry the law to its logical conclusion. He is proposing to alter the law and to indemnify those hon. Members.
I suggest that the Member who was returned for Mid-Ulster is also entitled to justice. As an hon. Member who is not familiar with these technicalities and with all these precedents, I should like the Member for Mid-Ulster to appear before a Select Committee, just as the other hon. Members are to appear before that Committee, so that he could be cross-examined and be able to state why he is in prison and what is the background of the affair. If hon. Members then had the verbatim report of the Select Committee, that would be far more interesting and colourful than many Select Committee reports and we would be better able to discover whether we should pass this Motion to deprive this Member of his seat.
The word "felon," as it is used in this Motion, is supposed to be a terrible word. It may be a terrible word to the Leader of the House, but many people with great national and international reputations have spent periods in British gaols for what were considered to be felonies. There is a precedent in the case of the Indian leader, Mr. Nehru. When Mr. Nehru was here recently, attending a Prime Ministers' conference, I asked him how many years lie had spent in British gaols and he told me that the number was nine. Today, everybody recognises that Mr. Nehru is a great international statesman and a great patriot. The fact that he was once considered a felon and was put into gaol by the British Government does not alter the opinion of the world now, and certainly will not alter the view of history.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and other hon. Members have raised the point of having been to gaol. Does the hon. Member not agree that having been to gaol is not a disqualification, but that it is a prerequisite that one must have completed one's sentence before standing?

Mr. Hughes: That is a very interesting point of view, but Mr. Nehru certainly did not complete his prison sentences. Of course, Mr. Nehru further expressed his view in a recent address to Cambridge University, when he said that he thought it should be a qualification for legislators to have been in gaol; and I quite agree with him.
There are two classes of legislators, those who have been in gaol, like the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and myself, and those who ought to have been in gaol and who have, so far, escaped. If the Attorney-General pursues his inquiries through the Directory of Directors some of them may not escape even now. But there is this background. We must realise that there is a very unfortunate background to the history of our relations with Ireland. The Attorney-General and legal hon. Members here will remember the controversy that went on for a long time around the case of Sir Roger Casement. Sir Roger Casement, from the point of view of British law, committed high treason and he was hanged; but, today, a large number of people in Ireland do not regard Sir Roger as anything but a patriot.

Mr. S. Silverman: Not only in Ireland.

Mr. Hughes: Not only in Ireland. I agree that, from his point of view, Sir Roger should not have been hanged for treason but should have been treated as a prisoner of war. It is quite likely that these hon. Gentlemen who are, unfortunately, in gaol in Northern Ireland might argue that they should not be in gaol, but should be treated as prisoners of war.
I suggest that this matter is so complicated that all hon. Members ought at least to hear the point of view of the man concerned and that we should not condemn him unheard. I certainly agree with the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) when they argue that these hon. Members should come here. If I were a Northern Ireland Member agreeing that the partition of Ireland was wrong, I should not stay away, I should not go to gaol, but I should come here and make a nuisance of myself. I believe that that is the correct policy that should be adopted by these hon. Members.
Enough has been said in the House to convince hon. Members who are not lawyers, and not acquainted with the legal niceties and technicalities of the matter, that Mr. Mitchell, even though he is in Northern Ireland and opposed to the Government of Northern Ireland, is now a Member of this House and should have the opportunity to state his case before a Select Committee. It is only by setting up a Select Committee that other hon. Members will be in a position to know exactly what is the background of the matter so that they can do justice to this hon. Member.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The most persuasive argument submitted by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was when he suggested that the electors of the constituency of Mid-Ulster had in their minds one primary object, and that was to return to the House of Commons a man who was necessarily disqualified in law. In that way, he said, they would ensure that they had as a representative a man who would never take part in the proceedings of this House.
I suggest that that is assuming quite a lot. Obviously, the electors of this constituency knew quite clearly—we can assume that they carefully thought about these issues—that all the precedents, all the history of similar cases, showed that this man was likely to be unseated and that the natural consequence of return of a felon who had not completed his sentence would be that a Motion of this kind would be passed so that he would lose his seat and there would be a new election. It is just as reasonable to say that as it is to make the suggestion which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne made in his most persuasive speech.
There is another point. I, like hon. Members opposite, would certainly prefer that the electors of Mid-Ulster should return on a clear majority a Member and that he should be the Member of their choice. The law, as is clearly indicated in the Act of Parliament, is that a felon cannot sit in this House. The precedents make it clear that we must take some action. In the past we have always approved a Motion of this kind of declare the election null and void, and the natural consequence of that is another election.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: There was a similar instance in South Wales, where a Welsh Nationalist was adopted as a candidate against the right hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell). If he had been elected as a Welsh Nationalist Member for Gower, would the hon. Member for Barry have taken the same attitude and said that the electors of Gower were not entitled to have this Welsh Nationalist as their Member?

Mr. Gower: I should say nothing of the kind. If the man happened to be serving a sentence for felony, he would be disqualified by Act of Parliament and that would mean that he would not be entitled to be a Member of this House. The fact that he was a Welsh Nationalist, a Sinn Feiner or a Scottish Nationalist would be immaterial.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman go further and do what the Government are doing, and insist that they elect somebody else? It may or may not be the fact that the legal disqualification prevented the elected Member from sitting, but where is the legal necessity for issuing a new Writ?

Mr. Gower: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the consequences may be most undesirable and, indeed, may land us here in considerable difficulty, because it is possible that at the new election the electors of this constituency might again, as is their right, return Mr. Thomas Mitchell. It is possible that again we might have a Motion of this kind before the House and again Mr. Mitchell might be unseated and declared not to be a Member, and it is open for Mr. Mitchell to be elected for a third time. Obviously, there are grave defects in our present procedure that can permit of such a chain of by-elections in a constituency.
However, the precedents certainly do not relate to a single instance of a case of this kind being referred to a Select Committee. The precedents are that each time the Member has been unseated by Resolution of this House or, alternatively, by a petition from a constituency. For that reason, I suggest that we are bound to support the Motion. That is not to say that we have no sympathy with the views which have been expressed. I have great sympathy with many of the views expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I am afraid that those views are not

in keeping with our constitutional and legal position.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) is a little muddled in his views on this subject. It is perfectly proper for the Government to submit the Motion. I am sure that the learned Attorney-General will agree that it is perfectly lawful for us to reject it. There is no legal problem involved at all. We can either unseat this gentleman and order another election or we can decide to take no action.
Of course, if Mr. Mitchell were to come here while he was still a felon and seek to exercise the privileges of this House, such as taking his seat or voting, then we should have to take action; but we are certainly under no legal obligation to take action until he does that. I am certain that the learned Attorney-General will not differ from me when I say that it is within our legal rights to take no action at all. Therefore, the question whether or not we take action is not important; it is a question of policy.
What policy ought we to pursue? The world today is divided between two sorts of democracies. The essential difference between them is simply that in the one sort of democracy Members of Parliament are chosen by their constituents. In the other sort, who the constituents elect is decided, not by them, but by their Government. We were not surprised when in that sort of democracy the late Mr. Joseph Stalin was returned by a majority which exceeded by 30,000 the total number of the electors in his constituency. That is the sort of thing we expect. The wholly essential basis of the other kind of democracy is that the constituents—not us, not the Government—decide whom they shall elect. It is the will of the constituency, not our will, not that of the Government—[HON. Members: "Under the law."]—certainly, under the law.
Let us see what has happened here. What is the will of Mid-Ulster? That is the important consideration. A narrow majority of the voters in Mid-Ulster decided in the Election that they did not wish to be represented in this House. They voted for a man whom they knew to be disqualified. They had been told so in the election address of the Unionist candidate. They had been told that their


votes would be thrown away. In Mr. Mitchell's own Election address they had been told that, were he elected, he would not, even though he were released from gaol, come here. So there can be no doubt that the majority decided that they did not wish to be represented here.
What about the other party, the Unionists? Since the Nationalists had elected a man disqualified to be a candidate, the Unionists could have claimed the seat. There is no doubt about that. If this Motion is founded in fact, and Mr. Mitchell is a felon, his candidature was a nullity, and the Unionists could have claimed the seat. But they chose not to do so. Their spokesman in this House today, the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) has told us why they so chose; because they, too, agreed, after the result of the Election, that Mid-Ulster had better not be represented here. So we have the unanimous verdict of both sides. The will of the electors of Mid-Ulster is that they do not wish to be represented here—the will of the Nationalists through the poll and the will of the Unionists following a solemn consultation afterwards, as has been said by the hon. Member for Belfast North.
We are now being asked to say to Mid-Ulster "It is not what you choose, it is what we choose." Surely, that is precisely what we object to when that happens on the other side of the Iron Curtain? We object, not to the absence of elections—there are elections there: we object to the electors being told who to elect, or whether to elect anyone at all. The Attorney-General has heard the arguments.
I do not blame the Government because, in accordance with precedent, they bring this Motion before the House. They are entitled to do so. But having heard the arguments on this completely non-party matter, during which views have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, surely it would be wise either to accept the alternative provided by the Amendment, and to give more consideration to this matter, or simply to withdraw the Motion altogether. The views of the Unionists have been heard. They do not want to be represented here.

Captain Orr: I cannot let that assertion pass. It would be untrue to say that

the Unionists, either in Mid-Ulster or anywhere else, do not desire Mid-Ulster to be represented.

Mr. Paget: That is certainly what the hon. Member for Belfast, North has said. He said that Mr. Beattie and his supporters discussed this matter, knowing perfectly well that they were entitled to claim the seat, and that they thought that it would be wrong to do so.

Captain Orr: But will the hon. and learned Member take it from me that the minority in Mid-Ulster, those who voted for the defeated candidate, certainly wished to be represented in this House?

Mr. Paget: All we can say is that their spokesman says that they do not; that they decided, after consultation, that they would not claim the seat in view of the fact that the majority of the constituents had expressed that view, and I can only respect them for deciding to abide by that democratic decision.

Captain Orr: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman again, but surely those who voted for the defeated candidate did in fact vote for someone to represent them in this House of Commons? They clearly declared their intention by within 260 votes of the others who voted.

Mr. Paget: No one is disputing that. But they were defeated, and, having been defeated, they came to the conclusion—which I respect—that it would be wrong to claim the seat. As we have been told, they thought that if they presented no petition the effect would be that Mid-Ulster would not be represented, and that is what the result will be, if we do not interfere.
Why should we interfere? We have the clearly expressed view of both sides in this constituency. One view was expressed in the Election, the other as a result of the Election; I agree that it was as a result of the verdict given by the Election, but it was expressed by the Unionists after the Election. Should we desire to change that, we should be adopting the same attitude as the other sort of democracy and imposing our will on a constituency against the views of the constituents.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Can the hon. and learned Member tell the House what would be the cost of claiming the


seat and putting in a petition? Would not the cost have some influence on the defeated candidate and his supporters?

Mr. Paget: I can assure the House that in a case such as this, where there is no evidence beyond producing a form of conviction, the cost would be almost negligible, and incomparably less than the cost of fighting another Election.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman is surely inaccurate in saying that the evidence is confined only to the proof of conviction.

Mr. Paget: I do not know what the evidence to be proved would he. That Mr. Mitchell was a convicted felon could, I imagine, be proved by producing the certificate. Secondly, the applicant, Mr. Beattie, could prove that he was a candidate at the Election and had received so many votes.

Mr. S. Silverman: He would also have to prove that the otherwise successful candidate was still in gaol and had not been pardoned—neither of which points would be very expensive to establish.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I oppose this Motion for many reasons, but I shall mention only a few. The first is that the need for the Motion arises from an occurrence in Northern Ireland which concerns not only Mr. Mitchell but also another man. For that occurrence both men were tried, jointly, by the same court; they received similar sentences; they were both candidates for Parliament, and they both suffer the same kind of disability—but a different procedure is being adopted in the case of each.
In one case we are informed that an election petition is pending—certainly some kind of proceedings are pending—and, whether or not those proceedings come within the doctrine of sub judice, it is incredible that a decision in the other man's case should not influence the decision in Mr. Mitchell's case. In a point of order earlier on it was argued that this Motion should not be considered because the issue involved is sub judice. Whether or not that be so, a decision in the case which is now pending in Belfast—on the same facts, in the same court, in respect of the co-actor with Mr. Mitchell, in the offence—must surely affect this case, and it would therefore be

extremely unwise for this House not to submit the matter to a Select Committee but to hear and determine it today.
My second reason for opposing the Motion is that it must be obvious from the discussion today that very large questions are involved here, but instead of being treated in a large way they are being treated in an antiquated and pettifogging way. We have an opportunity to consider them in a statesmanlike way by submitting them to a Select Committee of this House, which can take evidence; which will have the advice of the Clerk of the House; which will have the opportunity for calm and careful deliberation; and which will make a report which can, in due course, be considered by the House. I submit that that would be a calm, judicial and deliberative way of dealing with the issues which are before us.
My third reason for opposing the Motion is that it is unnecessary in the circumstances which have developed since 1870; it is unsuitable to the law and practice of today; it is unwise and bad statesmanship in the world as we know it; and it is undemocratic in seeking to avoid full and free discussion by this House of the issues involved. The Attorney-General was sparing in his words. He was unpersuasive—perhaps because he had a bad case, or was unfortunate in his timing, having regard to what is taking place at Geneva. Perhaps he thought of the unfavourable comments which might be made tomorrow, in the democratic nations in Europe, America and Asia, and at Geneva, about the issues which are being discussed here.
For those reasons and others, I oppose the Motion and support the Amendment, which seeks to avoid precipitate action. It seeks to proceed with due deliberation and discretion, by the appointment of a Select Committee to examine the precedents and the relevant law and report to the House. I am sure that the House will agree that this is a grave matter. It is general in its effects upon democracy; upon representative government; upon the rights of citizens to select and elect their candidates for Parliament; and upon the candidates who are so elected sitting and voting in this House.
I urge that these very grave considerations should not be treated in the offhand way in which the Government seek


to treat them today, but should be submitted to a Select Committee, which will be able to consider them in a careful and deliberate way. I ask the Government not to look at this matter in a partisan way and not to be actuated by the idea that they can, by this means, get another vote into the House. I suggest to them that that is what the country and the world will think of their refusal to have this matter fully and freely considered by a Select Committee.
These are fundamental matters which should be dealt with, not precipitately in this way, but with due deliberation, considering the precedents, as the Amendment seeks to do. The rights and privileges involved are not trivial; they are of the essence of democracy and should be decided upon carefully and responsibly. The relevant statutes and the legal decisions are complicated. Earlier Attorneys-General, in earlier Governments of the eighteenth century who had to consider matters of this kind, have described them as complicated and difficult. They are no less complicated today than they were then; indeed, it may well be that careful deliberation may lead the House to the conclusion that the law requires amendment. The House should therefore have the opportunity of considering the report of a Select Committee dealing with the matter.
Today, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), we witness in other countries retrograde movements which impair democratic Governments, which restrict human freedom, and which produce unhappiness for mankind. We do not want that kind of thing here. To prevent a man who has been duly selected and elected from taking his seat—without due inquiry or deliberation, as in this case—would be a step in the wrong direction.
One has only to look at the relevant passages in Erskine May to realise that the questions involved here are difficult Ones. There is a diversity of decided cases to be considered. They range from before the Civil Rights of Convicts Act, 1828, and the Forfeiture Act, 1870, up to the time of more recent Acts. The cases include many that are distinguished, including those of Smith O'Brien, 1849, O'Donovan Rossa, 1870, John Mitchel, 1875, Michael Davitt, 1882, and Colonel Lynch, 1903.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could my hon. and learned Friend explain the details of the case of O'Donovan Rossa?

Mr. Hughes: I should be very happy to explain the details of each of these cases, with which details I am very familiar because I have read a good deal in that field. The question by my hon. Friend adds to my reasons why this matter should be submitted to a Select Committee. It would be, I am arguing now, very appropriate for a Select Committee to consider not only the relevant statutes but the case of O'Donovan Rossa and all the other cases I have mentioned.
The fact, if indeed it be a fact, which determines or defeats the right of Mr. Thomas J. Mitchell to take his seat in the House is stated in the Motion. The House has no evidence that it is a fact. A Select Committee should have the documents laid before it. The House is asked to act upon the ipse dixit of the Minister instead of having the facts before it. It would be inappropriate for the Minister to come into this House laiden with documents and followed by a series of witnesses, in order to satisfy the House on the facts, but that would be appropriate in a Select Committee, and that is why it is desirable that we should have a Select Committee.
I was saying that what prevents Mr. Thomas J. Mitchell from taking his seat here is, as stated in the Motion, that he has been
adjudged guilty of felony, and sentenced to penal servitude for Ten years, and being now imprisoned under such sentence, is incapable of being elected or returned as a Member of this House.
That should be a matter of clear and concrete evidence, upon which hon. Members of this House should be entitled to cross-examine witnesses. We are entitled to know the details of Mr. Thomas J. Mitchell's offence, if it be offence.
Mr. Mitchell's motive in committing the alleged felony is disregarded by this House, just as it was disregarded by the court that tried him. He may be, on the one hand, as charged, a common malefactor who committed an anti-social act of gross moral turpitude; or, on the other hand, he may be a high-souled altruistic idealist and patriot who committed an act which he thought, for the good of the country which he is now debarred from serving.
Persons who would or might fall into the latter class would include various distinguished citizens of this country, some of whom have already been indicated. Some of them are present in the Chamber at the moment. Is it to be said that gentlemen of this calibre are to be deprived of their seat without being called before a Select Committee, having an opportunity of giving evidence and being cross-examined upon it, and having the advantage of the advice of the Clerk of the House and a report duly made and presented to the House?
I could adumbrate some of the questions which it would be desirable for a Select Committee to consider. They will spring to the minds of hon. Members. I urge the House to take the view that this is a matter affecting democracy, representative Government, and the rights of the House, and that it should not be decided in a cavalier or off-hand manner, as the Government seek to decide it today. It should be submitted to a Select Committee of the House to check evidence, take advice, and consider the matter in a judicial way for report to this House. That would give the House the opportunity of dealing with the matter as a deliberative assembly in a judicial way. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will succeed and that the Motion will fail.

5.46 p.m.

The Attorney-General: We have now discussed the Motion and the Amendment for a considerable time. Speeches made in support of the Amendment have covered very much the same ground. I will reply briefly to the serious points that have been raised.
The first is the suggestion that the Government have acted with unseemly haste, made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy). The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher)—I am sorry not to see him in his place—referred to haste, pressure and urgency. I can assure the House that there is no unseemly haste, no haste, pressure or urgency, and no unusual feature, about the tabling of this Motion. No Motion of this sort is ever tabled until after the time for presenting a petition and claiming the seat has expired. Then, before a Motion of this, character is tabled, there has to be a Return in order to provide

proof, the kind of proof that the House requires, of the facts. It is only then that a Motion of this character is tabled.
It would be very wrong, and would disfranchise a number of electors, if we were to delay an election for a constituency where something of this character had arisen. In the usual way, after the Return has been received the Motion is tabled.
The facts before the House—all the relevant facts which have to be established to the satisfaction of the House—show that Mr. Mitchell was convicted of treason-felony and sentenced to a term exceeding twelve months. Those facts having been established by the Return, then, by the law as it now stands, Mr. Mitchell was incapable of being elected a Member of this House.
It seemed a misuse of the English language to say that a person incapable of being elected a Member of this House has, because he has secured a majority of the votes, been elected to this House. The fact is that he never could be elected to this House because he is incapable by Act of Parliament of being elected.

Mr. S. Silverman: The Motion says it.

The Attorney-General: The Motion says that he has been returned. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) asked not to be interrupted in the course of his speech. I will repeat his request. Perhaps he will allow me to make my speech. I do not want to take a long time in doing so, and I want to cover the facts.
We have certain rules under our law as to which persons are disqualified from being elected to the House. It is unfortunate, perhaps, but one cannot at first sight devise a system whereby a disqualification could be determined before the electors cast their votes. I dealt with that point in moving the Motion. The fact that more votes are polled by a candidate incapable of being elected does not in any way alter the situation that that candidate, if he began by being incapable of election for any reason, remains incapable. The number of votes cast for him does not give him the capacity to sit as a Member of this House.
It is perfectly true, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, that the electors are perfectly


free to vote for whichever candidate they choose. But when we get a contest of this kind, when the majority—in this case of 260—cast their votes for someone who cannot be a Member of this House under any circumstances, and when we get the further feature that there is no petition claiming that seat, then it follows—and my view is confirmed by Erskine May—that it is no more and no less than the duty of Her Majesty's Government to move, at the proper time, a Motion of this character.
The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne asks for this matter to be referred to a Select Committee. Our views may differ as to whether the law should be altered or not, but so far as I can see there is no point in referring this matter to such a Committee. The relevant facts are clearly established. The MacManaway case was a matter of great difficulty, depending on the construction on a number of statutes. No such difficulty arises here, and in my view there is really no case whatever made out for the appointment of a Select Committee to deal with this particular case.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Mr. Hector Hughes rose—

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman made a very long speech and I listened to all of it. May I be permitted now to finish what I wish to say?
As to the second part of the Amendment, I listened to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, namely, that no warrant for a new writ should be issued for the constituency of Mid-Ulster during the present Parliament. He seemed to me to be putting forward two inconsistent reasons in supporting that view. He said that in the Lynch case it was argued that the constituency was so ill-behaved that it should not be represented. Certainly the case we are considering does not come within that category. Then the hon. Member seemed to infer that there was a majority view by 260 votes that that constituency should not have a representative in this House.
We have heard it stated that the electors in Mid-Ulster have agreed that they should not be represented here. I do not know what weight can be put on that expression of opinion or to what degree

the 29,477 who voted for the candidate who was qualified had an opportunity of expressing their views. However that may be, I do not consider that a case has been made out for saying that this constituency, which is entitled to send a Member to this House, should be disfranchised for the duration of this Parliament, as the hon. Member suggests. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the Amendment and to approve the Motion.

5.55 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I do not propose to keep the House for more than a few minutes, but, speaking as a back bencher in a debate which has largely been participated in by hon. and learned and right hon. and learned Members, I would begin by urging the House to take no notice whatever of the argument advanced by the Attorney-General towards the end of his speech in which he drew attention to the size of the majority, and referred to its smallness in this particular instance. The size of the majority has nothing to do with it at all. It is the decision of the constituency which matters—if it is by only one vote even.
I must confess that when I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman arguing the possibility that someone with the majority of votes in a constituency might not be said to be elected merely for that reason, if he was legally incapacitated from standing, I was reminded of similar arguments used in the Wilkes case when it was stated that because Wilkes was not as the Parliamentary majority thought a fit and proper person to be elected to this House he might as well be considered not to have been elected in spite of the fact that he got a majority of the votes. So the seat was given to the defeated candidate. History showed that argument to be specious and profoundly wrong.
I do not think that the House can this afternoon avoid making not so much a legal or constitutional decision as a political decision. I want to make a point that I do not think has yet been made in this debate. The issue is not whether a constituency has chosen someone who is ineligible to sit in Parliament, but whether the constituency has chosen someone who is ineligible not to sit in Parliament. The constituency is saying, "We are choosing whom we like not to sit in Parliament,"


and the Government are saying, "If you choose someone not to go to Parliament it must be someone who, normally, can go and you cannot exercise your right of not sending a person to Parliament unless you send someone who, in the ordinary course of events, could have come."
As the constituency has chosen not to come to Parliament someone who is in prison and unable to come here, then the Government say, "You cannot choose him because he is legally and physically unable to come already," and the constituency is replying, "The reason why we are choosing this particular man not to come to Parliament is that the disability which prevents him from coming here and its cause make him the embodiment of the cause of all of us who want someone not to go there."
I suggest to the Government that the logicians in this instance are the constituents, who have chosen in this way to issue a challenge to the Government to which they are opposed and choose as their standard bearer someone who has given up ten years of liberty because of that very belief. Whether we think the constituents are politically right or wrong, they have been logical. It is the Government who are being Irish, in the colloquial sense of that word. The people who have taken a logical line are the constituents, and those who are illogical are the people who are attempting to dictate to the constituents what kind of a person they are to regard as eligible to be chosen not to sit in Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde), who made a speech which I thought was largely in support of the Amendment, and which was an excellent speech apart from his decision not to vote for the Amendment, said that these things could only happen in Ireland, but, 200 years ago, they happened in our own country. The battle here was in the Wilkes case, and the fact that it has not been repeated in England during the last 200 years is because the national issues which tear apart the people of Ireland have not arisen here. But we won then the right of a constituency to elect whom it likes.
Nationality apart, looking back on the Wilkes case, politically, morally, personally and in every way Wilkes was not a fit and proper person to sit in the House

of Commons, but through this profligate, this man who was wrong in almost everything he did, the British people won the right for the constituencies to choose whatever person they like to send to Parliament. I hope that the House will support the Amendment.

Mr. Hyde: The hon. Gentleman referred to me as having made a speech in support of the Amendment. That is not strictly so. I expressed sympathy with the second part of the Amendment, but I said that I could not agree with the first part.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), I shall detain the House for only a few minutes—and excellent minutes his were. I doubt whether my few minutes will be as excellent as his.
I am not worried at all about democracy in this matter. As a very keen supporter of democracy, I should be very upset indeed if I thought that what the Government were doing was against democracy. What I am worried about is the fact that the Government are making fools of themselves. Here they are doing something which is playing right into the hands of the people whom they are trying to do down. All that is to happen now, if the Government get their way, as I hope they will not, is that another election will take place, when the same man will be elected and we shall have the same farce over and over again, which is exactly what the supporters of this man want to happen.
What a pity that the Government should make fools of the whole country, because they speak for the whole country in this matter. Are they not being too heavily Anglo-Saxon, too heavy-handed in this matter, just as they have been so often, unfortunately, in dealing with Ireland before for many hundreds of years? Cannot they take a lighter view of the matter? Cannot they leave the matter alone?
I believe that we are supposed to have representative government in this country, and I am very much in favour of representative government. I am not at all sure that I believe that if a majority elects a certain man to come here who is ineligible to come here, the Government


thereby have the right to take away the representation of the minority. I believe, therefore, that the minority should be left to make their petition, and if they do not want to, that the matter should be left at that. I believe in representative government. I believe that the minority in this case should be permitted by a petition to send their own man here in due course if they wish to, and if they do not, then the matter should be left as it stands.

At any rate, no argument has been put forward by the Government to convince me that the Government's policy in this matter is right, and I shall endeavour to express my dissatisfaction with the Government's policy, whatever I may feel about the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 63.

Division No. 25.]
AYES
[6.3 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Moison, A. H. E.


Alport, C. J. M.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Green, A.
Morrison, John (Sallsbury)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Armstrong, C. W.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Neave, Airey


Ashton, H.
Gurden, Harold
Nicholls, Harmar


Atkins, H. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Baldock, Lt. -Cmdr. J. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Baldwin, A. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Balniel, Lord
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Banks, Col. C.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Barter, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Oaksnott, H. D.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Heath, Edward
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bidgood, J. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Page, R. G.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bishop, F. P.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Black, C. W.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Howard, John (Test)
Pitman, I. J.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Braine, B. R.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pott, H. P.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hurd, A. R.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rawlinson, P. A. G.


Bryan, p.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Campbell, Sir David
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Renton, D. L. M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Kaberry, D.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Channon, H.
Keegan, D.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Robertson, Sir David


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kerr, H. W.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cole, Norman
Kirk, P. M.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cordeaux, Lt. -Col. J. K.
Lagden, G. W.
Roper, Sir Harold


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Leavey, J. A.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W,


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.
Leburn, W. G.
Shepherd, William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crouch, R. F.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cunningham, S. K.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Dance, J. C. G.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Storey, S.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Studholme, H. G.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
McKibbin, A. J.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Duthie, W. S.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thompson, Lt. -Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Errington, Sir Eric
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Erroll, F. J.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fell, A.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Vane, W. M. F.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maddan, Martin
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Foster, John
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Vosper, D. F.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Marples, A. E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Mathew, R.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Godber, J. B.
Maude, Angus
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Gough, C. F. H.
Mawby, R. L.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Gower, H. R.
Maydon, Lt. -Comdr. S. L. C.
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Medlioott, Sir Frank
Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)




Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Woollam, John victor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Mr. Redmayne and Mr. Wills.


Wood, Hon. R.






NOES


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hamilton, W. W.
Paget, R. T.


Bowles, F. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Pargiter, G. A.


Boyd, T. C.
Holman, P.
Parker, J.


Brockway, A, F.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Paton, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Peart, T. F.


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Carmichael, J.
Hunter, A. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Ross, William


Clunie, J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Cronin, J. D.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skeffington, A. M.


Dalnes, P.
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Delargy, H, J.
Mahon, S,
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Dodds, N. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Viant, S. P.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Dye, S.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Williams, W. R, (Openshaw)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mikardo, Ian
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Zilliacus, K.


Gooch, E. G.
Oram, A. E.



Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oswald, T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Owen, W. J.
Mr. Sydney Silverman and




Mr. Fletcher.


Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That Thomas J. Mitchell, returned as a Member for Mid-Ulster, having been adjudged guilty of felony, and sentenced to penal servitude for ten years, and being now imprisoned under such sentence, is incapable of being

elected or returned as a Member of this House:
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown for Northern Ireland, to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for Mid-Ulster, in the room of Thomas J. Mitchell, adjudged and sentenced as aforesaid.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY REPORT [12th July]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1955–56; NAVY, ARMY AND AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1955–56;

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1955–56

CIVIL CLASS VIII

VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

1. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Ministry of Food, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; of County Agricultural Executive Committees; of the Agricultural Land Commission; of the Royal Botanic Gardens. Kew; and of the White Fish Authority and the Scottish Committee thereof.

VOTE 2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD GRANTS AND SUBSIDIES

2. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,589,010, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for grants and subsidies to farmers and others for the encouragement of food production and the improvement of agriculture; and for certain direct subsidy payments and certain trading and other services, including payments and services in implementation of agricultural price guarantees.

VOTE 3. AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SERVICES

3. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for grants, grants in aid and expenses in connection with agricultural and food services; including land drainage and rehabilitation of land damaged by flood and tempest; purchase, development and management of land, including land settlement and provision of smallholdings; services in connection with livestock, and compensation for slaughter of diseased animals; provision and operation of machinery; training and supplementary labour schemes; control of pests; education, research and advisory services; marketing; agricultural

credits; certain trading services; subscriptions to international organisations; and sundry other services including certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

CLASS V

VOTE 4. MINISTRY OF HEALTH

4. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,295,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Health and the Board of Control; expenditure on the Polish health services; measures for civil defence; port health administration; residential accommodation for the aged, infirm, &c.; purchases on repayment for other Government Departments; expenses in connection with welfare food services and food hygiene; and sundry other services, including a subscription to the World Health Organisation.

VOTE 5. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, ENGLAND AND WALES

5. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,007,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the provision of a comprehensive health service for England and Wales and other services connected therewith, including medical services for pensioners, &c., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, the treatment abroad of respiratory tuberculosis, certain training arrangements, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, &c., necessary for the services, and certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

VOTE 10. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR SCOTLAND

6. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £694,990, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Health for Scotland and the General Board of Control for Scotland; for grants and other expenses in connection with water and sewerage services, town and country planning and the creation of new towns; expenses in connection with welfare food services and food hygiene; and certain expenses in connection with civil defence and other services.

CLASS II

VOTE 2. FOREIGN OFFICE GRANTS AND SERVICES

7. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,350,010, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for sundry grants and services connected with Her Majesty's Foreign Service, including subscriptions to international organisations and grants in aid.

CLASS I

VOTE 23. FLOOD AND TEMPEST DISTRESS RELIEF

8. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £150,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for a grant in aid of the Lord Mayor's National Flood and Tempest Distress Fund and other Funds.

VOTE 24A. REPAYMENTS TO THE CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND

9. That a sum, not exceeding £63,271, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, to repay to the Civil Contingencies Fund certain miscellaneous advances.

CLASS II

VOTE 6. COMMONWEALTH SERVICES

10. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,395,471, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for sundry Commonwealth services, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and certain grants in aid; the salaries and expenses of Pensions Appeal Tribunals in the Republic of Ireland; a grant to the Republic of Ireland in respect of compensation to transferred officers; and certain expenditure in connection with former Burma services.

VOTE 9. COLONIAL SERVICES

11. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £805,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1956, for sundry Colonial Services, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and grants in aid; and certain expenditure in connection with the liabilities of the former Government of Palestine.

CLASS IV

VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

12. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, a subscription to an international organisation, grants in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare.

VOTE 15. NATIONAL GALLERIES, SCOTLAND

13. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the salaries and ex-

penses of the National Gallery, Scotland, and the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, including certain grants in aid.

CLASS V

VOTE 6. MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

14. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £82,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for a grant in aid of the Medical Research Council, and for a grant to the Council in respect of research schemes under Conditional Aid arrangements.

VOTE 11. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, SCOTLAND

15. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £338,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the provision of a comprehensive health service for Scotland and other services connected therewith, including medical services for pensioners, &c., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, the treatment abroad of respiratory tuberculosis, certain training arrangements, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, &c., necessary for the services, certain expenses in connection with civil defence, and sundry other services.

CLASS VI

VOTE 1. BOARD OF TRADE

16. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £172,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and subordinate departments, including the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission.

VOTE 2. BOARD OF TRADE (ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY AND TRADING SERVICES)

17. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £404,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the expenditure of the Board of Trade on assistance and subsidies to certain industries, and on trading and other services; including subscriptions to international organisations and grants in aid.

CLASS VII

VOTE 3. PUBLIC BUILDINGS, UNITED KINGDOM

18. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for expenditure in respect of sundry public buildings in the United Kingdom, including a grant in aid, and sundry other services.

CLASS IX

VOTE 6. MINISTRY OF FUEL AND POWER (SPECIAL SERVICES)

19. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1956, for the supply, storage and distribution of petroleum products and certain other special services of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, including expenditure on civil defence and payments to recipients agreed with the United States Government of the sterling counterpart of dollars provided for the import of American coal.

CLASS VIII

VOTE 10. MINISTRY OF FOOD

20. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; for the cost of trading services, including certain subsidies; for direct subsidy payments, including certain payments tinder agricultural price guarantees; for subscriptions to certain international organisations; and for sundry other services, including certain expenses in connection with civil defence and payments to certain other Votes.

VOTE 12. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR SCOTLAND

21. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,563,870, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland aid the Crofters Commission: for grants and subsidies, including certain payments under agricultural price guarantees, to farmers and others for the encouragement of food production and the improvement of agriculture: and for grants, grants in aid and expenses in connection with services to agriculture; including land drainage and flood services; purchase, improvement and management of land; land settlement; public works in the congested districts: services in connection with livestock and compensation for slaughter of diseased animals; provision and operation of machinery; training and labour schemes; control of pests; agricultural education, research and advisory services; marketing; and agricultural credits.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1955–56

22. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £80, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1955–56

23. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £70, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of

March, 1956, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1955–56

24. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £60, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year, including a further grant in aid to the Royal Society.

[For details of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1955; cols. 1875–76.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I believe that this Supplementary Estimate deals with the mechanics of transferring to the local authorities the distribution of welfare foods, and I want to put some questions to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland about the transfer of this function. We on this side of the House have no objection to the principle of transferring the function to the local authorities. We have always regarded the provision of welfare foods as a vital part of the social services, and I think that the Labour Government played a notable part in extending and consolidating this provision.
We are concerned not so much with the mechanics of the transfer as the actual uptake itself. I should be glad if the Joint Under-Secretary would give us some figures, on the lines of those which were given by the Minister of Health, of the uptake of cod liver oil, orange juice, vitamin tablets and so on. The Minister of Health gave some startling figures, showing a reduction in the consumption of these welfare foods since the transfer of function to the local authorities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a little more information relevant to Scotland than was given by the Minister. After showing how the consumption of cod liver oil and orange juice had been reduced, the Minister went on to say, in effect, "These reductions of course, are worrying, but we need not pay too much attention to them because people are eating more fresh fruit. They can get these vitamins elsewhere." We


ought to have a closer look at that argument before we accept it.
I find from the most recent issue of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics" that, if we accept 100 in January, 1952, as the price of fresh vegetables and fruit, by April, 1955, that is in about three years, the price had gone up by 30 per cent. It seems to me that if the prices of fruit and vegetables are soaring, as they are doing and demonstrably have done during the last three years, it may well be the case that children are getting neither the fresh fruit nor the fruit juices through the welfare food services. I should like the Minister to pay atetntion to that and not to accept too readily the argument of the Minister of Health.
The monthly statistics also show that fish prices—they are lumped together with meat, bacon and ham—are up 20 per cent. since January, 1952. I do not know the overall consumption of fish in volume, but there is no doubt that the high prices indicated in the statistics must have a deterrent effect on overall consumption. As I have said, we are not objecting to the transfer of function to the local authority, but we are concerned with what the Government are doing to bring to the notice of the potential beneficiaries, the expectant mothers and the parents of children under five, the tremendous value of these welfare foods.
The health statistics of the country are something of which we can all be proud. I do not think that there is a country in the world which has health statistics that are comparable with ours. Welfare foods play a considerable part in ensuring a healthy nation, for healthy children almost automatically become healthy adults. If we cannot increase the consumption of these welfare foods, the Government will be doing a disservice to the nation. I hope, therefore, that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will say that the Government are doing all they can to publicise the vital need for parents to obtain these welfare foods for their children and to uplift the figures for the consumption of these foods, which I think must be going down in Scotland just as they are in England.

6.20 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I do not propose to detain the House for very long, but when this subject is before the House it gives a chance

for commenting on something which may be wrong with the scheme.
I have no blame for the Government, but I want them to do one or two things. It is good to know that the welfare services for mothers and children have been retained, but it is rather disappointing that mothers are not taking the advantage they might take of these good schemes. There are one or two reasons for that. I believe that in the beginning there was a very unfavourable Press for the scheme providing cod liver oil and orange juice. I do not think any unfavourable comment could be made about National Dried Milk, which is an inestimable boon to mothers and babies and is a very safe food.
When the Labour Party were in power, time and again I read sarcastic comments about orange juice. Such comments caused mothers to think that there was not much value in orange juice and to turn to orangeade which, in fact, does not contain any orange at all if it is labelled "orangeade." If one has studied the marketing, labelling and advertising of food, one finds that that is so, whereas the orange juice is made from oranges. A more important reason why mothers are not taking advantage of the scheme is that recently orange juice has become rather inaccessible. Due to the closing of certain food offices, distribution has fallen off and it is more difficult for mothers to obtain it.
To overcome that difficulty local authorities have agreed to help. Orange juice is readily available at clinics and some local authorities go even further by making supplies available to doctors. A great many general practitioners in Scotland have introduced a very good idea. They have a clinic for mothers and children one day each week. That has the effect of causing fewer mothers and children to attend ordinary surgeries in the mornings and evenings. Such a scheme is very greatly appreciated. In some cases local authorities provide the services of a midwife at these clinics.
It would be possible to have welfare foods distributed by this means, but as some local authorities appoint one doctor only, some ill-feeling is caused in the profession. If on a council estate there are three doctors, each running a clinic for mothers and children, why could they not all be supplied with the


welfare foods? At present I believe only one practitioner is chosen to do this work. In such cases he is given a great advantage in recruiting patients to his list. His list is apt to become very large, to the detriment of other doctors. It would be a very good thing if in places where doctors are running clinics they all had the opportunity of distributing welfare foods.

6.25 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I am sure the House is very grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) and the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) for concentrating our attention for a little time on welfare foods. I will do as the hon. Member for Fife, West asked me—take a closer look at the figures—and, to be as helpful as possible, I will look at each figure in brief detail.
In Scotland, we are not worried about the uptake of milk. The figure is fairly constant, about 97 per cent. of entitlement, that is 97 per cent. of the milk available in the scheme is taken up by those entitled to it.

Mr. Hamilton: That is the latest figure?

Mr. Browne: That is the latest figure, and that 97 per cent. covers liquid milk and National dried milk and the proportions between the two remain fairly constant.
The other welfare foods provide some interesting statistics. The most telling statistics are in terms of the percentage of total entitlement actually taken up by the beneficiaries. These figures help us to relate the national trend—about which the hon. Member for Fife, West was quite rightly worried—the national trend in the popularity of the foods with the fact that their distribution has passed from the Ministry of Food to local authorities. In the case of cod liver oil, in the four half years starting January,, 1953, and ending in December, 1954, the take-up was 22·1 per cent., 20·1 per cent., 19·7 per cent. and 19 per cent. We have to consider where the local authorities took over in that period. Before they took over, that is under the Ministry of Food, the percentages were 22·1, 20·1, and 19·7; under the local authorities the

figure was 19 per cent., only ·7 per cent. of a drop in a steady fall over two years. Local authorities have handled this matter for only a short time, and we must also compare the first three months of the present year—the latest figures—with the first quarters of 1954 and of 1953. In 1953, in the first quarter the take-up was 24·5 per cent. and in the first quarter of 1954 it was 22·3 per cent., a drop of 2·2 per cent. In the first quarter of this year under the local authorities it was 22·5 per cent., an increase of ·2 per cent. There is a slight increase—a recovery in cod liver oil under local authority management this year.
The same movement is seen in the figures for orange juice, where the recovery in the first quarter of this year was even more marked. In the first quarter of 1953 the percentage was 22·4 per cent., in the first quarter of 1954 20·6 per cent., which was 1·8 per cent. down, and in the first quarter of 1955 it was up to 22·1 per cent. That was 1·5 per cent. up and the 1953 figure was nearly reached. There has been no recovery under local authority management for vitamin tablets, but the rate of decrease appears to have been markedly reduced. Here the figure for the first quarter in 1953 was 28·3 per cent. In 1954 it was very much down, to 24·6 per cent.—3·7 per cent. down—but in the first quarter of this year it was only 1·6 per cent. down on the first quarter for 1954, this year's figure being 23 per cent.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us under which local authorities the figures are down and under which they are up? The figure which he has given will be an average, and I assume that it will not be the same for all local authorities.

Mr. Browne: I have looked at that. It would be too difficult and complicated to try to give a reply now.
It would certainly be wrong for this House to suggest that the transfer of distribution to local authorities has hastened the trend towards unpopularity. Rather, as I have pointed out, in the case of orange juice and cod liver oil, the reverse seems to be the case on the very limited figures before us. We must remember that these figures have not been listed long enough for us to draw very accurate conclusions.
What are we going to do about it? The local authorities must be scrutinising these figures with great interest. They will be invited to help the Department in undertaking an inquiry into uptake in the areas of individual authorities, to see if any explanation emerges of marked differences between areas of different types, or whether the effect of different methods of distribution can be discerned.
Secondly—and this is the point raised by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie, who made helpful suggestions and criticisms—the local authorities will be invited to look critically at the spread and availability of their distribution centres to see that these are thoroughly well known in the area, and to undertake other forms of publicity to ensure that the benefits and advantages of welfare foods are brought before the public generally and, in particular, before the mothers on whom, in the last resort, the success of the whole scheme depends.
The hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie gave welcome publicity to orange juice and drew the distinction from orangeade. We must be careful to see that all the avenues of publicity are examined. We are not complacent and not drawing conclusions yet. We are doing, and will do all that we can to publicise and improve the service.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

6.33 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): I think that it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to say a few words about E10—Revolving Credit for Argentina. The presentation of this Estimate was foreshadowed by my predecessor in the statement which he made on 31st March, 1955, on the occasion of the signing of the last Trade and Payments Agreement with the Argentine.
Hon. Friends may recall that my right hon. Friend said:
So far as payments are concerned, the new Agreement renews the credit and dollar point facilities which have been available since 1951 under the supplementary Protocols to the last Agreement.

He went on to say:
If the credit is drawn upon by the Argentine Government before the Supplementary Estimate has been approved by Parliament, the money required will be provided from the Civil Contingencies Fund."—[0FriciAL REPORT, 31st March, 1955; Vol. 539, c. 557.]
This credit means that whenever the Argentine sterling balance with the Bank of England is insufficient to meet Argentine payments to the sterling area, the Argentine Government can make drawings up to £20 million. Any advances outstanding on 30th June, 1956, are to be repaid by the 31st December, 1956. If, on the other hand, the Argentine balance rises above £20 million, they have the right to convert the surplus into dollars, but there is very little chance that this latter right will in fact be exercised.
Similar facilities were granted, but not used, to the Protocol of 31st December, 1952, and on that occasion the necessary provision was made on the Foreign Office Grants and Services Vote. The United Kingdom has not extended such facilities to any other country, but Argentine regards such credit as normal overdraft facilities, and they have about 25 similar arrangements in other agreements with other countries, including Germany.
This Credit could not have been withheld on this occasion as part of a general agreement on trade and financial questions without adverse consequences for our exports and other general and trading relations between the two countries. I think that the House may like to know that to date the Argentine has drawn some £5 million against the credit.
The right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards), who has just come into the Chamber, will know a great deal more than I do about the past history of these credits. The Argentine has drawn £5 million against this credit—£2 million on 31st May and £3 million on 4th July—and present expectations are that they will draw £10 million net during the current financial year. Drawings to date have been made from the Civil Contingencies Fund. As I have said, my right hon. Friend who is now Minister of Supply told the House that this would be the procedure if money was required before this Supplementary Estimate had been approved by Parliament.
I think that I should say a few words about the other financial provisions of this Agreement, because they are all bound up with this Supplementary Estimate of £10 million. The Argentine has committed itself to repay before 31st July, 1955, the sums due to sterling area holders of bonds of 4½ per cent. Province of Buenos Aires Loan, 1910, and, in addition, the Argentine has also promised to permit
exceptionally and on a limited scale
renewal of financial remittances to the sterling area. A total of £11 million is to be allowed during the currency of the Agreement, first, in respect of pensions due to retired officials of railways, and, secondly, in respect of incomes from investments in Argentina, public or private securities, income derived from real property and income from banking or savings deposits. Transfers are being made in chronological order of the dates on which applications have been made to the Argentine Central Bank.
Finally, I should like to say a word about the trade which is bound up with this payments Agreement. As I expect the House is well aware, Argentina is a very bilaterally-minded country. A strict bilateral agreement would have been contrary to the general policy of Her Majesty's Government. Moreover, most of Argentina's exports to this country are now admitted on open licence, and trade in all of them has been returned to private hands. In order to meet Argentina's wishes, it was necessary to give broad estimates of the trade expected in each direction. These trade lists, which run for a year at a time, and have just been renewed to cover the second year of the Agreement, are, however, no more than estimates and there is no binding obligation on either side.
We are anxious to get away from this sort of Agreement as soon as we can, but this was the best we could do, having regard to Argentina's determined bilateralism. We are much encouraged by the recent move of her neighbour, Brazil, towards multilateral trade and payments, and we hope that this example will not be lost on Argentina.
In saying this, I have had necessarily to cover again some of the ground which my right hon. Friend, now the Minister of Supply, covered when he made his statement on 31st March this year, but

I hope the House will think that I have explained adequately the need for this Supplementary Estimate.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards: I rise only for a moment to say that I think that, so far as we are concerned, we can approve this Supplementary Estimate. It does, of course, flow directly from the Agreement or Protocol of 1951, which I negotiated after some considerable weeks of discussion. Although this credit arrangement has not been used hitherto, I am quite sure that it is a desirable feature in the payments agreement between our two countries.
I was glad to hear the Economic Secretary say that there was provision now for remittances in the case of the railway pensioners—a matter which caused me a good deal of trouble in my negotiations—and if that means that the flow of pensions is now once again properly resumed, I am quite sure that it is a very good thing. I am glad, too, that there is to be some remittance in respect of investments and the like. I should like to take this opportunity to say, Mr. Speaker, if I am in order, that Argentina obviously needs capital from outside for its proper development. But whether she gets it will depend in no small measure on how existing investors are treated. If Argentina wants more capital to come in, people here must feel that those who put money into Argentina in the past are being properly treated.
I do not think I should be in order in following the hon. Gentleman into any long discussion about the return to private trading. I hope things will work out all right, but I may perhaps be permitted to have doubt as to whether we are not paying much higher prices for our meat than we would have done. Certainly, we are paying much higher prices than the price at which I bought 200,000 tons. Times have changed. In general, however, the Estimate meets with no resistance on this side. We are very glad to see that the present Government are carrying on what was, I am sure, an excellent arrangement.

Sir E. Boyle: I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks regarding pensioners. The figure of £1½ million includes about £200,000 in respect of pensioners.

Mr. Edwards: Thank you

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: is the Vote on Western European Union—Vote C7—to be moved by the Minister? If so, I will gladly follow him.

Mr. Speaker: It does not require to be moved. It is covered by the general Question which is before the House, That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Mr. Robens: Merely as a matter of courtesy, I wondered whether the Joint Under-Secretary wished to speak first.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): The normal practice on Report stage is for the Opposition to put the points and for me to answer.

Mr. Speaker: I think that that is customary.

Mr. Robens: Advances were made to me earlier that I might perhaps permit the Under-Secretary to say a word first, and I was prepared to do that. We are discussing Western European Union and the token payment of £10. This, of course, involves the new Treaty in relation to the change which took place with the Brussels Treaty, which was originally designed
to take such steps as may be held necessary in the event of renewal by Germany of a policy of aggression.
We have moved away from the Brussels Treaty, which was designed to contain Germany, to a new and wider Treaty designed
to promote the unity and to encourage the progressive integration of Europe,
in which Germany is included.
I appreciate that the £10 must be only a token. Obviously, at this stage the Government are not able to state what the total cost will be with the new commitments that have been undertaken. Certainly, we have within the Treaty the commitment of the four divisions permanently in Europe and the Second Tactical Air Force. No doubt, this would be carried on the Vote of another Ministry and is not open to us for discussion now.
I should, however, like to ask whether within the Treaty it is indicated that inspections in relation to the level of arms

are to be carried out by the Supreme Allied Commander for Europe. That is my understanding. I should like to know who is to be responsible for the oversight of the position of Germany, who voluntarily undertook not to manufacture certain arms. Is it intended within the Union to have a special organisation or sub-committee which would be included in this Vote for that purpose, or is that also to be carried out by the Supreme Allied Commander for Europe? I presume that, in the annual report which will be made to the Assembly at Strasbourg, there will be a report by the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe indicating from time to time the results of the inspections.
When the Treaty lays it down and when we now have a quite new department inasmuch as there is a Parliamentary Assembly, it surely must be the case that the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe will make a report in relation to the oversight of German arms and the level of arms for the other nations. I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to say whether I am correct.
I want to move from the military field, which we have discussed in the House on more than one occasion, to another aspect of the Treaty which, in my view, is an extremely important aspect. I refer to the economic, social and cultural collaboration between the nations. One of the objects of the treaty is
to promote the unity and to encourage the progressive integration of Europe.
Already there is on the Continent of Europe the Schuman Plan Assembly, which is designed to do the same thing. It is active at the moment with two commercial interests—coal and steel—and active steps are being taken to include other things within that field. What is the Government's intention in relation to carrying out that part of the Treaty to encourage the unity and progressive integration of Europe? Is it intended to do anything at all of a spectacular nature in that direction or do the Government intend to leave that with those European nations who are members of the Schuman Plan Community and to which we are attached by the new Treaty of Association?
It is quite important that we should know under what organisation the United Kingdom is to play the major part in


carrying out the Treaty or part of it in dealing with economic co-operation and European integration. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary had the opportunity of reading the article in "The Times" of 16th June by M. Jean Monnet. That most interesting article, dealing with this very matter, referred to the Messina Conference of the Foreign Ministers of the Coal and Steel Community countries, at which they undertook to examine and study what further steps might be taken in European integration and co-operation.
I should like to know what part the United Kingdom Government is to play. Will it use this opportunity, together with the Foreign Ministers of the Steel and Coal Community countries, to enter into studies with them? My assumption is that if there were to be an extension of the Steel and Coal Community, we should probably join in by a treaty of association, if not by full membership. Or is it the Government's intention that they themselves will now pursue studies to carry out the terms of the Treaty in relation to economic integration?
My understanding from the article in "The Times" is that the Foreign Ministers of the Coal and Steel Community countries are to study particularly transport, gas, electricity and the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. It is in this latter direction that the United Kingdom could play a very great part, but it cannot do so if the Foreign Ministers of the Steel and Coal Community countries only are concerned with this study. The real problem about Europe and atomic energy is that the countries have lagged behind through lack of finance, shortage of scientists and other reasons, and the United Kingdom is well in advance.
I believe that the United Kingdom must take a lead in this matter if it is to play any prominent part in European affairs, rather than simply to permit the European nations within the Steel and Coal Community to go on and lead the way and then for us to come dragging on at the end by a treaty of association. We have something to offer to the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. We have a good deal of know-how, a good deal of practical experience in the development of power stations powered by nuclear energy.

Within the terms of this agreement, therefore, there is an opportunity for the United Kingdom to make its presence felt in Europe, and perhaps to remove an existing feeling that the United Kingdom is rather dragging its feet on European integration.
It cannot be said at this stage that we have turned away from the idea of European integration, because we have signed our names to the Treaty, one of whose principal Clauses is European integration. It cannot even be said that we have turned our backs on that ill-used phrase "supra-national authority," because in the military field we have done a good deal of supra-national work inasmuch as we have put our Forces under a Supreme Commander in Europe.
Therefore we ought to take the opportunity offered by the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes within this Treaty of telling the European countries that we will join them in experiments, in scientific research and in sharing our knowledge of this development. There can be do doubt that the Americans and the Russians have gone well ahead, largely because they have been able to develop on a continental scale. So if we could develop this energy on a continental European scale we might make much greater progress than if we stay outside and wait until the Foreign Ministers of the Schuman Plan assembly have made their studies, which are due to be reported upon by 1st October this year.
Could the Joint Under-Secretary of State tell us how the Government will implement this part of the Treaty dealing with the encouragement of the progressive integration of Europe and what they feel about this country giving Europe a lead in the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes? If this European market can be enlarged, it will mean for all of us in Europe a higher standard of living, because it represents a market of 200 million people which is waiting to be developed. In this we can play our part. We have indicated that we are not happy about a supra-national body, but we have accepted the principle of association with it. Therefore, the lead might be given by us in this development, where we are fairly expert, to a number of countries which cannot be said to be so at this stage but which have in them


many people who would gladly and willingly join in the work.
In agreeing to this token amount of £10, I ask the Government to consider giving such a lead to Europe so that Europeans may realise that the United Kingdom is taking a lead. It would also do what we have been trying to achieve in the military field, bring Western Germany within the Western European organisation, and the combination of that country's scientists and know-how with ours could result in nothing but good.
While building up Forces for dealing with the problems of Europe, we must not neglect economic development. If, as the result of our lead, we can lift up the standard of living in Europe and ensure full employment throughout this Continent, which is needed in so many of its countries, the United Kingdom will stand much higher in its counsels.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: It is agreeable to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) on a question of foreign policy after the new responsibilities that have been placed upon him on the Front Bench opposite. If this evening is a foretaste of what is to come, I am sure that the House will be happier and richer as a result of his new responsibilities, of which we are all aware.
I agree with all that the right hon. Gentleman has said and I particularly ask my right hon. Friend to pay attention to the question of what chosen instruments are to be used for carrying out the duties which we have accepted under the Western European Union Treaty. But we do not want to think that, because we have accepted once again the need for integrating and co-ordinating the economic affairs and the cultural affairs of Europe, we need necessarily do that through the organs of Western European Union itself. There are plenty of organs ready to hand, and I am sure that we shall be fulfilling our obligations if we use the existing ones rather than if we create any more. If the opposite line is taken, which is to develop within Western European Union all the instruments for carrying out these tasks, it will not be a question of a token vote of £10 but of a much greater expenditure. I say this from the point of view

of the Western European Union Assembly of which I have had a short experience.
I am glad to know that, so far at any rate, there has not been that proliferation of committees in the Assembly which I feared. So far Western European Union has restricted itself to two committees of the Assembly, one dealing with the Saar and another, the General Affairs Committee, dealing with defence. That is right, because once there are committees in the Assembly dealing with economic affairs and once there are committees in the Assembly dealing with, cultural affairs, this will not only be duplicating the work of the European Coal and Steel Community and O.E.E.C. but also of the Council of Europe. And not only will it duplicate the work, but it is liable to be in opposition and hostility with the work which those bodies are already performing.
Therefore I join with the right hon. Gentleman in urging my right hon. Friend to see that Western European Union fulfils these tasks through other channels and does not set up channels of its own for this purpose. Otherwise the cost will become enormous, the position will become ridiculous, and the countries that on economic and cultural grounds should be within Europe on those different functional bases, will find themselves outside, since Western European Union is restricted to only seven nations.
For all those reasons, I hope that my right hon. Friend will see that Western European Union sticks to its last, which is primarily one of defence, and that the other obligations in the Treaty into which we have entered are pushed ahead through the other organisations which already exist and of which Europe is proud.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I am sure that the House will forgive me if I do not follow the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) on a subject which has been so adequately dealt with both by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and by himself. Most of us agree with the point of view which they put forward and it could not be more suitably dealt with.
I want to speak upon one of the other Votes, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will realise that while


at times we may criticise, at others we are ready to give credit when a step is being taken in the direction which we are of opinion is the right one.
I should like to say for myself—and I think this goes also for the large number of people who are interested in the subject—that we are thankful to the Minister for having agreed to make a contribution under Item D.5 of this Vote, namely, a maximum contribution of £100,000. We who are interested in the subject hope it will be a definite contribution of £100,000, but I understand—perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that this is a further contribution, and that £20,000 of the £100.000 is to be made conditional upon the total contribution, including that of the United Kingdom, reaching 3,250,000 dollars.
One can understand the difficulties of obtaining increased funds for work of this kind, and the extent to which it must be conditional on what other Governments are prepared to give. I think we would all feel happier if the Government had indicated that this is the first of a series of annual payments which it is their intention to make until the High Commissioner's programme concludes in 1958 or 1959. Perhaps we may have some indication from the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
We feel that there is the most vital need to bring the present tragic situation of the refugees to a close with all possible speed, and I think that we should make it clear to the whole world not only that we are benevolent well-wishers and supporters of the High Commissioner's programme, but that we will do everything that is in our power to bring it to a successful conclusion.
Some little time ago, together with representatives of other organisations interested in U.N.O., I signed (on behalf of the Jewish Board of Deputies of this country) a letter which appeared in "The Times," and I should like to say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are gratified by his prompt and considerate response to the appeal which was made there. The refugee problem is a very poignant subject. Those of us who have had anything at all to do with the question of refugees who had to flee from oppression and persecution know very well that the mere wording of any state-

ment, even of a statement of the nature of that to which I am referring here, cannot possibly in any way express what is behind the whole subject.
When we talk, as we do here, about a fund which is to—
… finance measures to promote the integration of refugees into the economies of their countries of asylum by means of vocational training, housing projects, settlement on the land, aids to students, social assistance, etc., in co-operation with the Governments directly concerned 
we realise that there is a wealth of human kindness behind those purposes, and if they are exercised in a humane and generous spirit, I think that not only shall we be gratified, but the world as a whole will thank us for the part that we have played in this very important mission.
I hope that the Minister will view the position in regard to the remainder of the work to be done in that light. The High Commissioner has a tremendously difficult job and any help for which he has asked should be readily given.

7.3 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: If I may, for a moment or two, follow the observations of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), I should like to say that we all know how deeply sincere is his interest in the plight of Jewish refugees. Certainly, anything that I propose to say does not mean to imply that I am not sympathetic to the point of view which the hon. Gentleman has put.
I am sure, however, that he will understand that my first interest in the matter of refugees has always been in those unfortunate Arab refugees who remain in the Middle East as a result of the establishment of the State of Israel. I think I am right in saying—perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to confirm it—that the High Commissioner for Refugees is not directly responsible for them—that that is a matter much more for U.N.W.R.A. than for the High Commissioner for Refugees.
My only comment is that I feel that of all the refugees in the world today there are none for whom this country has, or ought to have, a greater responsibility than these people, because it was as a result of a decision taken on behalf of this country as a whole that this position


arose. I do not propose to pursue that subject any further today, which may not be the occasion for it, and the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West and I have crossed verbal swords on this subject before. Whenever we have the opportunity, I think we ought to remind ourselves of the enormous responsibilities which this country has in solving this apparently insoluble problem of the refugees.

Mr. Janner: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will readily appreciate that I fully appreciate his particular interest. It is a question of the method of approach, and I think we are in agreement on that.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman was unsympathetic to the plight of refugees, whether Jewish or of any other race. All I am trying to do is to ask the hon. Gentleman to give me the same consideration as I am trying to give to him in acknowledging his interest in the Jewish refugees. I assure him that my interest is just as sincere, and, if anything, slightly stronger in favour of the Arabs.
I should like to return to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), and to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) in congratulating him on his preselection. I would remind him, however, that if we wish to make progress, preselection also pre-supposes a clutch, and the important thing is to have a clutch on the problems that we have to tackle.
My own belief is that some of his remarks were harking back to the days when E.D.C. was the policy rather than W.E.U. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman was harking back to the days when federalism was in the air, when we really did look forward to economic and political federation. In fact, that was the policy being pursued by the European countries as well as ourselves. My feeling is that we must never forget what happened last August and why it happened, and, in particular, we must never forget what M. Mendes-France had to say regarding the dangers of economic federation in Europe.
Today, knowing that the talks at the summit have been started, when I look across at what Disraeli called the mountain opposite, where we now see wide

open spaces, I feel that we must be careful in what we say this afternoon. The eyes of the world are on the summit talks, and it would be a tragedy if any words uttered here led to any more difficulties than those engaged in these talks at the summit are bound to experience anyway.
I believe that it would be the greatest mistake if we followed too rigidly what the right hon. Member for Blyth said, although I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen that it is refreshing to hear anyone in the House, and particularly from the Front Bench opposite, suggest that we should now take a lead in Europe. I have always been in favour of doing that, but the important consideration is the form which that lead takes.
My belief is that Disraeli was right when he said that if we destroy the traditional influences in Europe we shall leave in their wake something which is bound to cause more confusion rather than bring about more stability. It has been that, all along, that has worried me most about the attempts, particularly of the United States, made in the past to federate Europe, because I do not think that the United States understands, in the same way as we do, and with the experience which we have had of Europe over the centuries, the traditional differences that exist in Europe, compared with the United States.
Of all the things which seem to me to have impeded world peace up to now, the chief one has been the attempt to foist on the free world one economic system, rather than to allow each State to do what it thinks best in its own economic interests. Of all the problems which confront Europe, this is one to which I hope W.E.U. will give attention if it is to consider the economics of Europe. If we are to solve the economics of Europe the first problem we must tackle is how to cope with the situation in which one great nation of the free world is the supreme creditor nation and most of the others are debtor nations.
I do not believe that that problem can be solved by forcing non-discrimination on Europe. If Western European Union has been set up to consider the economics of Europe as well as the defence of Europe, and to try to get the economics of the European countries on to a really firm basis, I am certain that the hope


of achieving that does not lie through the policy of non-discrimination which we have been compelled to follow force majeure but rather in restoring to the countries of Europe the right to discriminate.
What is more, I believe that this problem does not lie only West of the Iron Curtain. I do not think that this is a question concerning us alone. This is a question of economic survival, and I certainly agree with what the right hon. Member for Blyth said about that. If we are to get a stable Europe we must consider the economics alone with the defence of Europe. We cannot hope to get a stable defence if our economics are shaky. It is clear that not enough attention has been given to that in preparing for what is now going on at Geneva.
I hope that before the Geneva Conference is over we shall see a greater realisation of the fact that it is not armaments, not ideologies, not party politics alone, not such problems as the reunification of Germany alone, that really matter today. It is the problem of affording a way to every country to have an economy which suits its own interests without being antagonistic to those of others.
We have been in a strait-jacket of indebtedness at the mercy of the greatest creditor nation, and that goes for all European countries. I do not believe that that state of affairs can continue for much longer, because in pursuing that policy we are undermining our own ability to make ourselves once again a creditor nation. That remark applies to other countries, too.
Of all the big problems which face Europe—and I am sorry if I am treading on the boundaries of order—none of the free world has yet faced properly the question, "What is to be the ultimate measure of German corn petition and what effect will that have on Western European Union and on the economies of the free world?" With those questions, I think that I had better conclude before I take the debate further than you, Mr. Speaker, would wish.

7.13 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): First, may I add my congratulations to those already expressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) on his shadowed eminence and

also on the way in which he started the debate? I am sorry if there was any misunderstanding at the beginning, but the procedure followed is the normal one on Report.
I will try to answer the questions which he and other hon. Members put. The right hon. Gentleman's first question dealt with the control of arms. He asked how was inspection to be carried out, what part of Western European Union would deal with it, and to whom would reports be sent. The Agency for the Control of Armaments will deal with the Protocol in the Paris Agreements. The Agency, which consists of a director and an international staff, will be responsible for ensuring that the undertakings given by the member countries on the limitation and control of their armaments on the mainland of Europe are observed.
It will receive for this purpose statistical and budgetary information, and it will carry out test checks, visits and inspections on the territories of the countries concerned. The headquarters of the Agency will be in Paris. The Agency will make periodic reports to the Council of Western European Union. So far it has not been settled what will be the function of the Assembly in these matters. The Agency will make its reports to the Council of Ministers of Western European Union.
The second question was the one about economic integration, and the Coal and Steel Community, leading to Messina. My hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) also dealt with that side of Western European Union. It is the view of Her Majesty's Government that Western European Union should not attempt to take action which would duplicate, or cut across, the work of existing organisations. It is of vital importance that the House should recognise that fact.
This is a seven Power Union dealing primarily with the problem of France and Germany. It would be a great mistake and add to the complication, and indeed to international expense, if we tried to duplicate it. This is primarily a defence organisation. It has no powers for economic integration. That is my answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). I find it rather difficult to give him a fuller answer than that, because he was so very near the "summit," and I am sure that the "summit" has nothing to


do with the debate. Western European Union has nothing to do with economic integration, and therefore I cannot deal with his question.
I want to correct one statement which my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen made, I am sure inadvertently. He said that as far as he knew, Western European Union would have only two committees, and he expressed pleasure at that. That statement is not quite true. There is the Agency for the Control of Armaments, and in addition there is the Standing Armaments Committee. Further, Western European Union will take over the committees of the Brussels Treaty Organisation—the Social Committee, the Cultural Committee, the Public Health Committee and the Committee on Rehabilitation and Resettlement of the Disabled. They are all very important committees.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would not it be much better if those functions were transferred to a wider assembly, because they are all functions which deal with many more than the seven nations concerned? Social, cultural and economic matters, concern ten or even fifteen nations in Europe, and not merely the seven. It is purely historical accident that they have got tied up now with the limited defence commitments of the seven.

Mr. Turton: Although it is a pure historical accident, my hon. Friend must realise that they are at the moment a part of the Brussels Treaty Organisation and as such they are continuing their valuable work in Western European Union. Whether we can give them new fathers and mothers later is a matter primarily for members of the Western European Union.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth asked about the extension of the Coal and Steel Community. That could not, as I envisage it, come under Western European Union. I refer him to the exchange of correspondence, which was published only recently, and in particular to the final letter from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, dated 1st July, in which we said that we should be very glad to take part in the studies. We were very anxious that due account should be taken of the functions of existing organisations such as O.E.E.C., and

we should be happy to examine, without prior commitment and on their merits, the many problems likely to emerge from the studies. It is not a function of Western European Union, but I thought that I would remind him of that White Paper so recently published, which sets out our aim to co-operate in these studies.
The next point about which the right hon. Gentleman asked me related to the question of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. I say again that it would be a great mistake to limit that to this seven-Power organisation, especially in view of the Eisenhower plan for the peaceful uses of atomic energy. He can rest assured that the Government have taken a leading part in this matter of the peaceful use of atomic energy and will continue to play their part, but not in connection with Western European Union.
I think those are all the questions asked of me about Western European Union, and I wish now to turn to the questions about the provision for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' plan which were raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) and about which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely also spoke. In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, I would say that this has nothing to do with Arab refugees who are assisted by a different fund to which we have made a considerable contribution.
This is a new fund. It was started only on 1st January of this year, and it succeeds the United Nations Refugee Emergency Fund, as a result of the decision of the United Nations General Assembly in October of last year. We are making a contribution of £100,000, which is described as the maximum. Of this amount, £80,000 will be made available outright, and the remaining £20,000 will be paid, if the total of the contributions to the fund, including the contributions of the United Kingdom, reach 3¼ million dollars.
It may interest the House to know that, so far, other Governments have pledged themselves to contribute a total of 770,000 dollars to the Fund. I understand that in the United States Congressional approval is being asked for a contribution of 1,400,000 dollars which will probably be conditional on the other Governments subscribing the remaining


two-thirds of the 1955 target figure of 4,200,000 dollars. We know what good work was done by the preceding Fund and the good work that will be done by this Fund, and we are, therefore, anxious to give it a good start. But the hon. Gentleman must not expect me to give any forecast of what we shall do in future years. Let us see how the High Commissioner's plan for 1955 goes forward.
It is a plan to provide for the expenditure of 4,200,000 dollars, of which 1 million will be for emergency assistance. By this contribution we have given a lead to the other countries which I am glad to see that they are following. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West for the kind things he said about the decision of the Government in this matter.

Mr. Robens: Would the hon. Gentleman clear up one point for me? Despite the fact that within the Paris Treaty there is a clear indication that one of its principles is the pursuit of the economic integration of Europe, I gather from him that it is not proposed to develop this Treaty Organisation for that purpose, but to use whatever existing organisation there may be. Do I, therefore, understand that in relation to the studies being undertaken by the Foreign Ministers in the Coal and Steel Community Assembly, which includes the peaceful development of atomic energy for Europe, we are to be invited to take part in those studies and shall be taking part; or is it merely that we have exchanged letters undertaking that we shall be willing to do so, if we are invited?
Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that we are not to make a special effort about the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes within Europe itself; that we are, in the present circumstances, leaving the matter to world-wide development based on the declaration of the United Nations?

Mr. Turton: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear, I was under the impression that I had. I said that Western European Union is limited to the seven Powers. It is primarily a defence organisation and has as its main purpose to try to bring France and Germany together. For that side of the work no doubt we have to see that France and Germany work together

economically as well as for defence purposes. But it is vitally important that it should not duplicate the work of existing organisations. Certainly, we shall go forward with the atoms for peace plan in Europe, but not by means of Western European Union.
The Messina Powers did not commit themselves to a definite plan. They suggested that studies should be undertaken to make research into the future. By our letter of 1st July, we accepted an invitation to take part in those studies. At the same time, we gave a warning that we must not in this case overlap the work of O.E.E.C. I think that answers the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I think that this Supplementary Estimate merits a few words from someone on the Government Front Bench. There is a mistaken idea, which is widespread as well as mistaken, that apart from exercising their powers of disputation on matters of football, politics and religion, the Scots have few or no interests—apart from a propensity for haggis and whisky and maybe tossing the caber on the odd afternoon.
It is strange that the Scottish Department should have managed to persuade the Treasury to spend £25,000 on buying a picture, and not a picture of a Highland scene. The purchase is a picture by Velasquez of an old woman cooking eggs. I wish to know who selected this picture, and why. I am wondering whether it was because there was some fellow-feeling between the present occupants of the Scottish Office and Diego de Silva Velasquez, who was himself a bit of a monopolist. It may be that, because of that, the occupants of the Scottish Office thought, "We had better have an example of this fellow's work to hang in the National Gallery of Scotland." I believe that when Velasquez became the court painter to Philip IV of Spain, a post which he retained for


thirty-seven years, he insisted that all other portraits of the King should be withdrawn and that he, and he alone, should paint the King's portrait.
Or was it a matter of the historic interest of this subject—the old woman cooking eggs? Notice the plural—"eggs." I do not think that very many old-age pensioners in Scotland were cooking eggs for themselves last Sunday. It may be that the purpose of the Government is to distribute a copy of this painting, if not the original, in the headquarters of the Old-Age Pensioners' Association—with which the Joint Under-Secretary had a certain connection in the past—as an illustration of a passing aspect of Scottish social life, even if it is by a Spanish painter.
I believe that the painting is in the National Gallery in Edinburgh. The Joint Under-Secretary, who represents a Glasgow constituency, will know that very few Scots people go to Edinburgh. It may therefore be that this picture is for the delectation of foreign visitors going to Edinburgh for the Festival, rather than for the Scots. Is there any suggestion that the picture will be sent round to other parts of Scotland, to let the people see what they have had to pay £25,000 for?
At any rate, I congratulate the Scottish Office on having been able to secure this £25,000 from the Treasury. We have been trying to get money from the Treasury for the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, in respect of the floods last winter, and for many other things. I understand that last winter Lord Strathclyde was in the North of Scotland telling the people that they could not have money to clear away the snow, and yet, somehow or other, the Scottish Office has managed to get £25,000, which is quite a lot of money to a Scotsman—

Mr. Speaker: if the hon. Member keeps to the £25,000 he will remain in order. I agree with him about that. But he cannot roam over the whole field of possible alternative Government expenditure.

Mr. Ross: That is the point. I am sticking to the £25,000. If the Government had stuck to their original Estimate they would not have been asking for this sum.
I am performing my responsible duty as a Member of the House of Commons in watching over the Government's additional expenditure, and I am pointing out that so many claims upon the Government have been resisted and yet, in this case, the Scottish Office has been able to obtain £25,000 for the purchase of a work by this old Spanish master. We in Scotland are very much in love with art and with the Old Masters. If the picture had been one of the other works of Velasquez, such as "The Toilet of Venus"—which I believe is not very far from here—I should have been better satisfied, but this is a commonplace picture, painted in the earlier Velasquez period.
I congratulate the Scottish Office, at this time of continued contemplation of things which are much more material—such as the cost of food, milk, and all the other things about which we have heard complaints today—upon being able to step outside such considerations and go in for the bright aspects of culture. I should like to know who got this money from the Treasury. There is a rumour that the true function of Lord Strathclyde, the Minister of State, is the seeking out of art treasures for the Scottish Department to purchase for the Scottish Gallery.
I should like to know whether the exhibition will be confined to Edinburgh, or will travel round the country. I should also like to know whether the Scottish Office has any other purchases in mind and, if so, whether it will reveal to back benchers how this money is obtained from the Treasury—because that is a secret which we are very anxious to learn.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has done a service to the House and to Scotland by drawing attention to this item, which had escaped my notice. We certainly deserve a very full explanation of the way in which the Scottish Office managed to secure the incredible sum of £25,000 to enable it to place this picture in the Scottish National Gallery. The explanation surely is not that it wished to convince the people of Scotland that the typical Scottish old-age pensioner spends her time cooking eggs. If that is the explanation, the expenditure


of this sum is not justified; we are imposing upon the credulity of foreigners visiting Edinburgh. This picture will give quite a wrong conception of the average social life led by old women in Edinburgh to visitors from France, Holland, Germany and the United States. They will go away convinced, by a picture painted by Velasquez many hundreds of years ago, that Scottish old-age pensioners re still enjoying such a standard of life that they can afford to cook eggs.
I believe in the fine arts; it is not my business to criticise the Scottish Office about an item of this kind. I have no objection to money being spent upon paintings—even if they are remote Old Masters—if they convey a true impression of life in Scotland, but why does the Scottish Office concentrate upon Velasquez? Have we not already enough pictures by Velasquez in this country today? In the National Gallery there is a room full of his pictures. I am sure that it would be far more economical if the Velasquez Exhibition from the National Gallery were sent to Edinburgh and then around Scotland, instead of the Scottish Office coming forward with a bill for £25,000 for one picture by that painter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock referred to another picture by Velasquez—his picture of Venus. If that were sent to Edinburgh it would not be treated in the way the Suffragettes treated it when they tried to destroy it. It is a work of art.
I should like the Secretary of State to assure us that he is giving adequate encouragement to the younger artists of Scotland. Are the younger artists from Glasgow, Kilmarnock, Kirkintilloch or Edinburgh—who are longing to receive encouragement from the Government—going to be treated in the same generous way as the dead Velasquez? Would it not have been better if this £25,000 had been spent on some of the works of the promising young students of the Edinburgh and Glasgow schools of art? It is all very well to worship the past; that is what hon. Members opposite are here for. I understand that their idea of a great picture is something which is very old. They worship ancient institutions, even in the realms of art. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that he is justified in asking the House for this £25,000? Under what circumstances did he convince the

Treasury that this expenditure was justified?

7.40 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I hope to convince the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that the Treasury and the Scottish Office are making an investment in treasure, education and artistic inspiration for our young painters, many of whom, unlike the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will not prefer the Toilet of Venus to the picture of an old woman cooking eggs.
The questions asked by the hon. Gentleman have already been asked and partly answered. The circumstances in which it was decided to purchase the Velasquez for the National Gallery of Scotland were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a Written Answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) on 26th April, 1955. This reply said:
The Trustees of the National Gallery of Scotland learned last month that Sir Francis Cook and the Trustees of the Cook Collection were willing to sell the Velasquez painting 'The Old Woman,' which forms part of that collection. It was recognised that it was of the highest national importance that this picture, which is one of the very few paintings by Velasquez still in private ownership, should remain in this country, and the Trustees accordingly decided to seek Exchequer help towards its purchase.
The answer went on:
The price of the picture is £57,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed subject to the approval of Parliament, to make an Exchequer grant of £25,000 towards this sum. The National Art Collections Fund have generously offered to contribute £5,000, and the remainder will be contributed by the Trustees from their own resources. A Supplementary Estimate will be laid before the House as SOCHI as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1955; Vol. 540, c. 55.]
We are now debating the Report of that Supplementary Estimate. The Velasquez is probably the most important painting yet purchased by the National Gallery of Scotland and will take its place among the four or five most outstanding works in the collection. The Spanish School is at present represented by paintings by El Greco, Zurbaran and Goya, but the gallery did not previously have a Velasquez.
The painting belongs to the years 1620–1622, immediately before Velasquez


left Seville to settle in Madrid. It represents the interior of a kitchen in which an old woman is sitting, holding over a stove a pan in which eggs are cooking. My brief does not say how many eggs there are. Before the painting passed into the Cook Collection it belonged to Sir Charles Robinson.
The export of works of this nature from Spain is now forbidden, and this seemed to be the last foreseeable opportunity of securing for Scotland a worthy work by Velasquez. At present no work by Velasquez is on public view in this country outside London. I am sure hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House will be grateful to the National Art Collections Fund for their contribution of £5,000, which is a generous one in view of the comparatively few contributing members of the Fund domiciled in Scotland.
This is the first occasion on which the National Gallery has received a special grant from the Exchequer. Last year, the National Museum of Antiquities received a grant of £8,000 towards the acquisition of the Galloway Mazer, of which the purchase price was £11,550, and the Royal Scottish Museum received a grant of £6,885 towards the acquisition of the Lennoxlove Silver, the purchase price of which was £17,000.
I hope, after that explanation, that the hon. Member will realise, as I said before, that this is an investment in treasure, education and artistic inspiration.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: The House is in a very generous and quietly agreeable mood today. We have already voted the Government about £11 million, to be added to all that was originally voted earlier in the year. Now we are dealing with the salaries of dentists.
At the end of last week the English and Welsh dentists were voted a figure of just over £3 million. Now the Scottish dentists get their share, which is

about £360,000. To what amount will that bring the average salary of the Scottish dentist? Secondly, how much does this addition mean per dentist? I presume that the Minister, in giving us this information, will tell us how many dentists there are.
One of the reasons given by the Government in 1952, when introducing the charges for dental treatment, was that the consequent reduction in the income of dentists would lead to a switch of dentists to school dental service. The number of school dental people increased by eleven last year, from 160 to 171. What will the result be if we pass the proposed Supplementary Estimate, increasing salaries by £360,000 for the general practitioner dentist of Scotland? What effect will it have on the school dental service?
No one can say that the school dental service is adequate today. There are counties in Scotland that have no school dental officer at all. Undoubtedly, there is no room for complacency. I am concerned about this matter. I do not begrudge dentists their extra salary so long as they do not begrudge me mine. What will be the effect if there is no change in the position of these dentists in the school dental service?
It is not as though the dentists had a hard time last year. I find that although the number of courses done by dentists outside the service went up by 7 per cent., dental earnings rose from £2,954,000 to £3,199,000. In other words, every person in Scotland, man, woman and child, cost us 12s. 6d. last year in payment to the dentist. The year before is was only 11s. The dentists' earnings increased by 8 per cent. to just under £250,000. Now we are giving them, by this additional Supplementary Estimate, an 8 per cent. increase in their earnings.
It requires justification, the kind of justification we had the other day from the Minister of Health, who said that this was a matter of arrangement. The dentists' scale of fees, he said, had been cut by 10 per cent. and now a new scale of charges was to be negotiated: it was not complete yet, and meanwhile we had quickly to produce the new scales.
What is the basis of this increase of £360,000? Is it a recognition that when the original cut was made in dentists' earnings it was an injustice? Is it once again recognised that, despite all their


promises, the present Government have failed to keep down the cost of living, which has been causing some bother even among the professional classes; and that in order to do justice the Government have had to meet the claims of dentists by giving them this money? It will bring the total given to dentists all over the country to nearly £3½ million.
I wonder whether the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland would have been re-elected to the House if he had said in his election address that one of the first things he would do when he got back to Westminster would be to pilot through the House of Commons a Supplementary Estimate giving dentists an extra £3½ million, at the same time as he was resisting demands for an increase for the blind people, the 10s. widows and others. I think it will require a considerable amount of conviction and persuasive oratory on the part of the Joint Under-Secretary of State to convince us that he is doing the right thing, when he failed to let the people of Scotland know only a few months ago that this was in the mind of the Government.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has once again done a service to the House and to Scotland in calling attention to the Supplementary Estimate, because if any Estimate deserves to be thoroughly scrutinised it is this one, approval of which the Joint Under-Secretary hoped to get very quietly in a half-empty House. Yet we know that some of these Estimates deserve a great deal of scrutiny, and those of us who are used to the careful ways of Scottish local authorities in examining in detail every estimate of this kind to see what burden is to fall on the taxpayer or the ratepayer would be failing in our duty if we did not require a statement from the Minister about such an Estimate as this. There is nothing which keeps a Department and its Minister on their toes more than the knowledge that any of what they think are insignificant Estimates might be questioned, and that an account might have to be given of them in the House of Commons.
I should like to ask a question about the sum to be given to the dentists. For example, when the dentist sends in his bill, does it include the cost of equipment? During the Election my attention

was drawn to the fact that one of the greatest monopolies was the apparatus necessary for the extraction of teeth. The Joint Under-Secretary has just been telling us about the purchase of a picture by Velasquez which depicts an old woman frying eggs. It may well be that he will have to come here again to justify the purchase of a picture by Velasquez showing the extraction of teeth.
What steps have been taken to get this Estimate reduced? Can the hon. Member deny that the chair used by the dentist, and the forceps and the various other instruments employed in modern dentistry, are price-controlled by a gigantic monopoly? If he were prepared to reduce the price of material used in the dental service, would the amount he is asking for in the Supplementary Estimate be so large? I think we are entitled to have reassurances on these points.

7.54 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I am very glad to be able to reply to the debate on this Supplementary Estimate, which does for Scotland what the National Health Service Estimate. England and Wales, Class V, Vote 5, did for England and Wales; that is to say, it restores the 10 per cent. cut in the dentists' fees as from 1st May, 1955, which is an eleven-month period, at a net cost of £338,500. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) did not seem to be quite sure whether he approved or disapproved. He said he did not mind the dentists getting more, and then he began to imply that he did not want the dentists to get what we believe is a square deal.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member will recognise that this is the Report stage and I spoke before I heard the Government's explanation. If the hon. Gentleman had spoken first, his powers of persuasion and his eloquence are such that I probably should not have spoken at all.

Mr. Browne: If the hon. Gentleman had asked me to speak first, or had indicated that he would like to hear what I had to say, I should have done as he requested.
The cut has been restored as a result of United Kingdom negotiations carried on by the Health Departments with the


British Dental Association and the increased scales were, therefore, a matter for arrangement. If there was an injustice—and I am not going to argue that point—careful examination for a long period, which started before the last Election, showed that the restoration of the cut was justified.
The answer to the specific question asked by the hon. Member is that there are about 1,175 dentists in the general dental service, and the average increase in their remuneration will amount to about £350 each. We do not expect that there will be any adverse effect on the school dental service because of this comparatively small increase in the salaries of those in the general dental service.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I am concerned about this Vote. I recognise that perhaps 40 or 50 years ago both the motor industry and the watchmaking industry required assistance, but that is not the case in 1955 when fantastic profits are being made by them, and we know that there is a record output in the motor industry. Yet we are asked to give assistance amounting to £28,500 to the motor-car industry and £23,000 to the watchmaking industry.
What in 1955 justifies such substantial grants to those industries? Surely they are very prosperous and it is not necessary to make annual grants to them. Not only that, but their manufacturing plant as been derated. What sort of Alice-in-Wonderland business is this? The Government are derating these industries to encourage them to develop, and at the same time are giving the taxpayers' money in the form of subsidy to firms which are enjoying outstanding prosperity.
There are firms in this country which are really American firms engaged in the manufacture of watches. Do they get any of this grant? I believe that there are also subsidiary companies of Continental firms, and I am wondering if they get any of this grant, or is it confined entirely to purely British firms?
In my constituency there is an industry which needs all the help it can get, and certainly to a far greater extent than either of the two industries that I have mentioned. I refer to the shipbuilding industry. I am sure we in Scotland would rather see Government action about shipbuilding than about watchmaking or motor manufacturing. I appreciate that I cannot mention shipbuilding in the context of this Vote, but I am concerned when I see that the watchmaking industry is given this grant in connection with:
… acquisition of essential plant to be leased on easy rental terms; the firms to whom such plant is leased are normally given the option to purchase it at the end of a term of years at the then fair market value.
I wonder what that means. If a firm has been using these machines for 10 years on hire, and at the end of that period it can buy them at the then fair market value, could we be told what that value is? The machines have been depreciating during that time.
I have seen quite a lot of machines which have come from the Ministry of Supply and from the War Office and have been used for five or six years in a factory. At the end of the period of the Government control over the factory the machinery has been disposed of to the owners of the factory at a fair market price. Very often I have known such machinery to go for next to nothing. I have seen some good machine tools knocked down in 1945 and 1946 at fantastically low prices. Having devoted £23,000 per annum to the provision of these machines, apparently they can be sold for next to nothing because the taxpayer has paid for them.
If the Government acquire machines and let them out to the watch-making industry at a fair rental or on a kind of hire-purchase system, surely the machines should have been paid for after a certain period and there should be no cost to the taxpayer. But here machines are being provided by means of hire-purchase arrangements over a number of years, as a person might buy a television set, but it is costing us £23,000 to do it. To me that seems absolutely crazy in an industry which is so well established.
We then find this item in the Estimates:
Assistance to the motor car industry: provision required to meet the cost of relief of purchase tax on certain racing cars.


Why should there be relief of Purchase Tax on racing cars? I do not see how it can help the British motor industry at all. There have been several attempts by big motor firms in this country to produce a successful racing car and they have completely failed. I understand that a Mercedes-Benz design has won the British Grand Prix.
Then there is this item:
Recovery and transport of scrap metal: provision required to meet the cost and transport of scrap recovery … £454,000.
That is the cost to the taxpayer for recovering scrap for the steel industry. I admit that when the steel industry was nationalised it was all right to pay such a sum when the profits went to the Treasury, but the profits of the industry—some £61 million per annum—now go to the private shareholders. The taxpayer is still paying £454,000 to collect scrap for an industry the profits of which are now going to the shareholders of that industry. That is a shocking state of affairs.
There should be investigation into why £454,000 should be paid by a Government Department to acquire scrap for a private steel industry the profits of which are not recovered by the Government but go to the private shareholders. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will answer these very important questions and say why the taxpayer should be supporting industries which are more prosperous today than they have ever been before.

8.4 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Donald Kaberry): I think I can satisfy the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) on the three points which he has raised. With regard to the motor car industry and the sum of £28,500; it was decided in 1950 by the then Ministers that the production of racing cars should be encouraged to enhance the value and prestige of British cars and British engineering. It was thought wise to encourage improvements in the design of cars and it was decided to give this encouragement by relieving the cars of Purchase Tax.
It was found that this could be done only by refunding the tax after it had been paid. Therefore, this sum is to provide for the refund of the Purchase

Tax on certain specified kinds of racing cars. That is the intention of a policy which has been pursued since 1950. It is impossible to make a broad guess of the amount involved beforehand. Past experience has shown that it is very difficult indeed, and that it is better to treat the matter in this way by refunding the Purchase Tax when the actual amounts have, in fact, been ascertained.
As to the item, "Assistance to the watchmaking industry"; the withdrawal of commitments already undertaken would represent a major change in Government policy and a certain risk for the watchmaking industry. It would be interpreted as a breach of faith which might lead to the collapse of watchmaking in this country and to heavy losses of financial investment.
A brief history of the matter is that in 1945 there was a decision to spend by instalments £1 million—that was planned by the then caretaker Government—to provide for the assistance of the post-war commercial watchmaking industry. The revival of the industry was sponsored for strategic and economic reasons and the strategic importance of this particular industry has been recently emphasised.
These payments are required to reimburse two watchmaking companies and one jewel making company for their annual payments to the Swiss for the first year's lease of specialised machinery essential for these products. The other item is for the Crown's share of certain losses of a factory making medium-grade watches during the 12 month period beginning in August, 1954. The future protection of this industry in the face of foreign competition is one of the problems which need further consideration.
I hope I can satisfy the hon. Member effectively on the third point, especially as he represents a Scottish constituency. The sum to which he referred is the amount expended by the Board of Trade itself in the recovery and breakdown of ships which are handed over free of charge by the Admiralty and the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation for breaking up. The scrap is sold and shows a profit which will, in fact, be shown in due course as an extra receipt on the Ministry of Supply Vote. I think I can satisfy the hon. Member to this extent, that there will be an excess of credits over debits of some £263,000.

Mr. Ross: The Minister said that it will be shown in the Ministry of Supply Vote. Can he say why we have got this item:
A.15.—Recovery and Transport of Scrap Metal"?

Mr. Kaberry: That is included in the item which still leaves a profit on the Ministry of Supply Vote.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Are we going to deal with the Navy Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): That is passed.

Mr. Hughes: It was impossible for us to understand what was going on. We could not hear.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for War will be able to clear up one or two matters that arise from this unique, unprecedented Supplementary Estimate. In the first place, I should like to state the position as I believe it to be. No doubt the Under-Secretary will be able to tell me whether I have stated it correctly.
As I understand the matter, for a good many years the Army has been receiving from the German people a great many services and supplies which it needed for the troops in Germany. Consequently, no moneys had to be provided by Parliament for many of the things which our Forces in Germany consumed. In effect, they were able to take them in kind from the German people. Now, owing to political changes, that arrangement has come to an end, and it is therefore necessary for the Army to pay for the things which previously it received without paying. To do that, it must have money. That money is to come from the German Federal Government, in accordance with recent agreements, but annually we need Parliament's approval to ensure that the money granted by the West German Federal

Government can be applied to the purposes of the Army, and indeed of the other Services. I understand that that is how the Supplementary Estimate arises.
This reveals a surprising position which, as far as I can see, the House has permitted to exist for a good many years. I understand that in the case of the Army a matter of some £70 million a year is in question. That means that during the previous years, in addition to the sums voted to it by Parliament, the Army was able to obtain about £70 million worth of stuff from Germany which was not voted by Parliament and over which Parliament apparently had no control. It is very remarkable that we should have allowed the Executive to maintain Armed Forces partly out of money not approved by Parliament but raised from occupied territory.
If I remember correctly, that was what the Earl of Strafford endeavoured to do in the case of Ireland, and the Parliament of that day took a very displeased view of the matter. I hope, however, to hear from the Secretary of State for War or the Under-Secretary that the whole purpose of the Supplementary Estimate is to assure us that the highly unconstitutional situation which we have allowed to continue for a great many years has now come to an end. If I understand that that is what we are now doing, a sum of £55 million in this Estimate, which previously in effect was taken in kind from Germany, is now to be a money transaction and to receive the approval of Parliament.
As to the actual sums involved, there is one thing in the Explanation of the Estimate which at first sight is rather surprising. While Germany was under obligation to provide certain services for allied Armed Forces, the total amount that she might be required to supply was limited, according to the first paragraph of this Explanation, to £600 million a year. Under the recent agreements, the total sum is to be £270 million a year.
Why has it been possible to make that considerable reduction, or is it that the maximum figure of £600 million previously fixed was never anything like reached? At any rate, there seems to be a considerable step down from £600 million to £270 million, of which the share of the British Forces is £70 million. It would appear from the Estimate that


out of the £70 million the Army's share is £55 million. One would, of course, expect the greater part of it to go to the Army. I trust that the Under-Secretary will be able to say a few words about the general position and whether my interpretation of the nature of the Estimate is correct.
There are only one or two particular questions arising from the Supplementary Estimate which I should like to put. In relation to "Vote 4—Civilians," I take it that I am right in supposing that our Forces in Germany are to a very great extent dependent for their proper functioning on a large supply of German civilian labour. That was the position in the past and, as far as I can see, that is still the position.
I notice that in the same Vote, under Subheads, "F—Military schools and training establishments" and "G—Army educational establishments," there is an increase in the Estimate altogether of some £880,000. One may conclude from that that the sum of £880,000 is the amount to be spent by the Army in Germany on military schools, training establishments and Army educational establishments, but it would be interesting if the Under-Secretary took the opportunity to give us any further news which he may have about the progress of the provision of educational facilities for the children of armed personnel in Germany.
We have in the Supplementary Estimate the means whereby we can judge how much money is being spent in Germany on these two items. No doubt the Under-Secretary will remember the very interesting debate which we had on this subject a month or so ago, towards the conclusion of the last Parliament. The amount of information which was then forthcoming from the Government Front Bench was rather limited. The hon. Gentleman might take the opportunity of the debate on this Estimate to tell us whether he has now had time to consider the various suggestions which were then made from both sides of the House. I see that the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer), who took a notable part in that debate, is present, and I trust that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us a little more and something a little more encouraging about this extremely important subject.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Bence: I want to ask some questions about this Supplementary Estimate. There seem to me to be some amazing figures in it. First, I notice that in "Vote 4—Civilians" there is a Subhead "H—R.A.S.C. and veterinary and remount establishments, &c." Presumably that has something to do with horses. Here, in 1955, we have an increase of £1,510,000 in expenditure for veterinary services connected with horses.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): It includes lorries for the R.A.S.C. as well as horses. I assure the hon. Member that over £1 million are not spent on horses.

Mr. Bence: I wish that the War Office would describe the item as "lorries" and not "horses." One cannot refer to expenditure for remounts for lorries.

Mr. Head: The Subhead mentions the Royal Army Service Corps, which is a very large organisation, and of the three groups together infinitely the smallest relates to horses.

Mr. Bence: I accept that explanation. It does not make my comparison as bad as it otherwise would have been.
I also notice that in respect of an item for "Miscellaneous educational and training charges" there has been an increase of only £10,000. "Rent of buildings" has risen from £2,296,000 to £6,760,000, an increase of £3,800,000. Does that mean that the War Office has taken over more buildings and, therefore, is having to pay more rent, or an increased rent to those who own the buildings?

Mr. Head: These are not actual increases, but a transference of the amounts the Germans were paying to help us, which appear as increases. In fact they are the sums which in the past were paid by the Germans and they are now put on this Vote so that they are under the control of Parliament. It is not an increase but is what has been happening in previous years and has to come on to this Vote.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): May I remind the House that we are not in Committee.

Mr. Head: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I should be very much obliged to the Minister if he would give rather more detailed justification than he has given hitherto to convince the House that the increases on the last page of the supplementary Estimates are justified.
For example, we fine under Vote 9—"Miscellaneous Effective Services, A—Telegrams, Telephones and Postage" that the original estimate was £3,876,000, which has gone up to £5,666,000, an increase of £1,790,000. That seems an enormous sum to spend on telegrams, telephones and postage in occupied Germany, whoever is paying it. The Secretary of State for War is merely following the precedent of other Ministers. He thinks he can slip anything through because there is such a small House. I think it a great reflection on the Government that so few hon. Members supporting them think it necessary to come to the House when millions of pounds of taxpayers money are being voted in this way.
Apparently this procedure is to continue, and I want again to emphasise that it is exceedingly important that Supplementary Estimates should be very carefully scrutinised, especially when they come from the Service Departments. We grant an enormous amount to the War Office every year but, like Oliver Twist, it comes at the first opportunity to ask for more. This revised sum of £5,666,000 to be spent on telegrams, telephones and postage by the Army of Occupation in Germany is a staggering sum. We deserve some explanation of it.

Mr. Head: If the hon. Member would not think it discourteous for me to say so, I do not think he has read the introduction to the Estimates. This is not an increase but a transference of what has been spent in Germany. Very misleadingly, it is shown as an increase, but it is not an increase from the taxpayers' point of view or the point of view of anyone else. It is a transference of a sum of money to our Vote. I thought that explanation would help the hon. Member.

Mr. Hughes: That is a very inadequate explanation. I want to know why on page 6 of the Estimate it is very definitely stated as an increase of £1,790,000. If these Estimates are misleading, surely the Minister is responsible.

Mr. Head: If the hon. Member will allow me to interrupt again, the introduction, which I do not think he has read, explains that the increase is a procedural matter transferring German money on to the Vote and that this increase he talks about is money provided by the Germans.

Mr. Hughes: I have read the introduction. I want to know why, after having written such a confusing introduction, the right hon. Gentleman makes it more confusing by the table of statistics on page 6. Surely the strategy of the War Office and the Army is complicated enough without completely misleading hon. Members on such facts as telegrams, telephones and postage.
The Secretary of State for War has not answered the point I made. It is why this large sum has to be paid. I know there is a question of transference from one authority in Germany to another, but there is an increase. At this point surely we are entitled to know something about why this enormous bill for telegrams, telephones and postage is submitted to the House in this Supplementary Estimate. I know that a very considerable case could be made that the whole of our military expenditure in Germany is enormous and that this increase further complicates it.
When an hon. Member asks innocently for an explanation of what is put down in black and white as an increase of £1,790,000 surely we are entitled to have an explanation of that increase. Surely there should have been a decrease. With the enormous amount of training in Germany and the organisation of new German divisions this postage bill should not have been incurred. I submit that the Secretary of State should give some indication to the House of why this enormous sum for postal services should be increased instead of decreased.
On Item B, I think we are entitled to an explanation of the phrase, "Higher formation training." What exactly does that mean? Why is there an increase in the item for higher formation training? In what way has the training been altered? Is the increase for higher formation training budgeted for because the Army has embarked on new tactical exercises as a result of the War Office discovering that there are such things as atom bombs in the world?
Those of us who are not experts on military strategy have tried to understand some of the explanations. There is a new hon. Member in the House who, I am sure, has not the ghost of an idea of why the War Office ask for £5,000 for higher formation training. What was the lower formation training? We have already had a statement from the Secretary of State that the latter part of the supplementary Estimate is grossly misleading. Apparently we have to stop at the introduction. Having read the introduction, we pass on to the statistics. Apparently, the Secretary of State for War wants us to stop at the first pages of the introduction, but that is not the way to scrutinise Army Estimates.

Mr. Head: It may be my fault, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman, if I may say so, is being at his best. He has entirely misunderstood the whole purpose of this Estimate. What has happened is that, during this period with which we are concerned, the Germans will be paying the same amount of money as they did last year for certain services, which the British Army in Germany receives; but instead of doing that without reference to Parliament, we have transferred that sum to the Army Estimates. The only way in which we can show it is by a token Vote of £10 and putting down the money which the Germans have paid as an increase. It is not an increase in expenditure. Our telephone bill has not gone up. It is merely transferring the money. The hon. Gentleman who has taken part for ten years in these debates with me is chasing a hare which I promise him is not a starter.

Mr. Hughes: If it is a hare, the Minister has not caught up with it. I am very accustomed to these dispersal tactics of the Minister retreating to a stronger position in the rear, which is not there. As Members of the House of Commons we are responsible to our constituents for the taxpayers' money, and when it is a figure of £5,666,000 which is presented to us, we are entitled to have some explanation of it.
I thought that I had left the telephone, but the right hon. Gentleman has brought me back to it. What I am seeking now is information about higher formation training.
There are miscellaneous educational and technical training charges which have apparently increased by £10,000. The total sum is £577,500. Then there is the compensation for losses, which comes to the rather large sum of £1,225,000. Surely £1,225,000 is not a trivial, insignificant sum. I remember when hon. Members opposite were in Opposition what a row they made about the groundnuts scheme in Africa. But here there are much larger sums very obscurely stated, and I submit that we are entitled to have some clear and definite explanation, rather than the offhand remarks which have been made by the Secretary of State for War.
I believe that he is making these offhand remarks simply because he does not understand his own Estimates. The Estimates are brought to the House of Commons for scrutiny and approval of hon. Members whose duty it is to protect the taxpayers of this country. There are no more wasteful, greedy, expensive and exorbitant Ministers than those who come along with these bills for Supplementary Estimates. I suggest that if the Secretary of State for War cannot give any coherent explanation at least the Under-Secretary should have an opportunity of explaining these items.
When we are told that there is a net increase in the total appropriations in aid of £55,219,935 and that there is a token estimate of £70, I think that we are justified in at least having some attempt at explanation as to what these huge items mean.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. James Simmons: In the original Estimates we have a Vote A and in the Supplementary Estimate we have not a Vote A. How can we consider whether this money has been properly spent? Has it some relation to the number of people upon whom it is being spent? I know that it is possible to refer back, as I have done, to the Army Estimates for 1955–56, but that does not help very much in this case. I think that it would help if the Votes which we are discussing in the Supplementary Estimate had the same column reference as those in the original Estimate, giving the numbers for which they are responsible. That would enable us to get a better idea of the value of the money which is being spent.
Are we getting value in goods and services under this, as I think it is now called, support contribution or support payment, equal to that obtained when it used to be called occupation costs? Does the change of name mean any difference in the value of the service that we are getting? Are the civilian personnel dealt with in this Estimate the same as they were before the changeover from the Army of Occupation to the integrated part of N.A.T.O. or whatever we are in now? Do we rely on mainly German labour for this civilian work or have we British labour out there as well?
When looking, as I have done, carefully at the explanation on page 7, I am somewhat mystified. We are told that the obligation for
meeting the local requirements of the Occupying Powers
amounted to about £600 million a year. That was during occupation and before the change of status. What was the British share of that £600 million a year?
We see from paragraph 3 that
Under the terms of the Convention, these support funds …
amount to approximately £270 million and that our share is £70 million. If our share is £70 million, why are we dealing with an Appropriation in Aid of £123 million? The Appropriation in Aid which we are now dealing with is £55 million.
There are one or two points which arise on the original Estimates. My hon. Friend has mentioned the veterinary and remount establishments. If he refers to page 100 of the original Estimates, he will find that the veterinary and remount establishments account for £40,000 of the Estimates and that there is no provision for either horses or mules. The whole of that Estimate is concerned with one retired officer; Grade III, two assistants (scientific), three clerical, typing, etc., staff, twenty-six industrial staff, overtime, National Insurance, six locally-engaged clerical, typing, etc., staff abroad and 117 locally-engaged industrial staff. About £40,000 is spent on veterinary and remount establishments, although there are, apparently, so far as we can tell by the Estimates, no remounts to deal with. Then, I notice that in Vote 4, Civilian, although the figure for pay and record offices increased last year by £122,000, the total is now up by another £150,000. I wonder why?
Then I come to "Recruiting, welfare and legal aid," which has increased by £55,000. Does this all apply to German civilians? Is there no welfare service in Germany itself? Is it our obligation to provide a welfare service and legal aid for German civilians? Have they no welfare service or free legal aid of their own, as we have in this country? Surely a country which has now got national sovereignty should be looking after its own nationals and should not be dependent upon the charity of what might be called a semi-occupying Power.
Under Vote 7, subhead D, there is an increase of £415,000 under "Warlike stores." Why are there warlike stores in the hands of German civilians? Is this our contribution towards German rearmament? I cannot understand why the total expenditure under this head is £109,177,000. I am ignorant on these matters but from where we do get warlike stores? I take it that this deals with civilians. Did the Germans supply us with warlike stores when we had the Army of Occupation there? Are Krupps in production?

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: The hon. Gentleman is slightly mistaken. Vote 4 is the only one dealing with civilians. Vote 7 has not got a heading "Civilians."

Mr. Simmons: But we have been told that instead of the Germans giving us goods and services, as they did when we were the occupying Power, they now give us the equivalent in a contribution. I am wondering where they get the warlike stores from to give to us when they are supposed to be forming their own army.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) referred to higher formation training. I thought that that was very hush-hush and was confined entirely to brass hats of the highest grade, who were hand-picked. If that is so, we must be careful. Here, under the German contribution under another name, is an amount spent on a higher formation training. What are we training these Germans for? Are we taking them on the General Staff? Are we providing them with brass hats and red tabs? Are we integrating them into the British Army? It is very peculiar.
Then under Vote 9 there is a subhead "Compensation for losses, damage, &c."


containing a most amazing figure. The increase is more than the original amount, which was only £500,000, whereas the increase is £725,000.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: They have had a mock battle.

Mr. Simmons: Why are we bearing these losses? Are they barrack damages? In the British Army the "mugs" pay for barrack damages—that is, poor old Tommy, not the taxpayer nor even the Germans, through a contribution.
An increase of £725,000 on barrack damages is a bit stiff, so can we have some information on this matter, which is not a joking one? It is many years since I was in the Army, and we used to have a little money knocked off now and again for broken windows or broken hand scrubbers, but it never amounted to a sum which could be put down in a Supplementary Estimate to the extent of £725,000.
I hope the Minister will be forthcoming about this matter of compensation for losses, damage, etc. Can we know what losses are incurred? Is it a loss of status for any of these people? What damage is incurred? Is it damage to Army installations or barracks, and if the damages are caused by the civilian employees, should not they, as well as soldiers, be called upon to pay for barrack damage? Why should soldiers have to pay for such damage, while civilian employees do not?
Those are the main points that I want to raise. There do not seem to be any outstanding matters, and the item "Miscellaneous Charges" is so nebulous that one cannot say much about it. I ask the Minister not to think because we raise these points that we are desirous of being unduly critical or of being nasty towards him. I know that he sometimes thinks that we like to be nasty, but really we do not. We think a great deal of him, and like to see him come here, take charge of the Estimates and reply to the debate in person.
We raise these points only because it is the duty of all Members of Parliament, when we are dealing with Estimates for the Services or anything else, to protect the interests of the taxpayer, and it is no use the right hon. Gentleman riding off by saying that this is not the taxpayers' money because we receive it from

Germany, or from an appropriation in aid under some agreement signed on the Continent. It is the taxpayers' money in the sense that it concerns services for which this House is responsible, and we are glad to have the opportunity of discussing them. We hope that the Minister will not take it amiss that we have used this opportunity to raise what may appear to him to be niggling points, but which, after all, are points on which we desire information.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I think that a certain amount of time could have been saved if the War Office had thought fit to print the Explanation at the beginning of the Estimates rather than at the end. It may seem an extraordinarily simple point, but it is the sort of thing recommended in the Military Manual. I am sure that some of the time which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) spent in trying to investigate these matters might have been saved.
Nevertheless, although these Estimates show that this House is called upon to provide only £70 from the British taxpayer, undoubtedly they raise a great issue about the British military base in Germany. We very often hear forecasts of what the cost to us will be in the future, and though I feel quite certain that the House will have no difficulty in passing the £70 that is called for, and not all the mathematical genius of the hon. Gentleman opposite can make it any more, it does raise the question of the German base.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Gentleman mentions the cost of the base in Germany. Can he give us an estimate of the cost of that base?

Mr. Fraser: If the hon. Member for South Ayrshire wants a further explanation, I would suggest that he should repair to the Library and read the Explanation given, when he will find that the cost to the taxpayer this year is £70. The Estimate gives an approximate idea of what it will cost in the future, and that is the point on which I should like to say a few words tonight.
It is impossible at this stage to go into the details of this expenditure, but I feel that it is absolutely essential that the base for the four British divisions which


are now committed to Europe, their support and the support of the civilian organisation for their service, should be well done. I think it is absolutely vital that the services, the employment of civilians, barracks accommodation and other installations in which these British troops and their families will have to live, should be of the best. Hon. Members on all sides of the House have stressed the necessity of seeing that Regular recruitment for the Army is increased, but the very essence and test of the future attraction of the Army will undoubtedly be the stationing of these four divisions in the British base in Germany. I expect that the expenses are high. We know that they are in the neighbourhood of £55 million—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is going beyond the Estimate.

Mr. Fraser: Then I will discuss the Estimate in more detail. About £30 million will be spent on civilian employment. I believe that it will be well spent if we see that it aids recruitment to the British Regular Army. The test of the efficiency of our forces may well be the efficiency of the British base in Germany. This expenditure, high though it may be, is necessary as our contribution which is vital to the structure of N.A.T.O. and to the defence considerations on which most hon. Members in this House are agreed.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) said that the Minister might have avoided some of the cross-examination to which he has been subjected if he had put the Explanation at the beginning instead of the end of the Estimate. I acknowledge that, generally speaking, the Minister is very lucid if he is not always very logical, but I do not think that in the Explanation Note he is even lucid.
I should like to know whether the £70 million referred to in the Estimate, which will be the British portion of the £270 million which the Bonn Government will be finding for the period from 6th May, 1955, to 5th May, 1956, is sufficient to fulfil the requirements of the British Armed Forces. Can we take it that the total cost of the divisions and the Air Force in Germany today is £70 million? Can the right hon. Gentleman say

whether that will be so next year, whether it is likely to remain at about that figure or whether there is any chance of it being reduced?
There is a further point which I raised during the debate on the Army Estimates in February. I should like to know the position of British officers and men serving in Germany. When they were part of the Army of Occupation they had considerable privileges and advantages. They had cheap facilities on the railways, cheap petrol, duty free goods from the N.A.A.F.I., and those facilities were extended to their wives. I cannot find out whether or not the officers and men serving in Germany are worse off as a result of the West German Government being granted independence.
I should like to know whether the concessions which the men had as members of the Army of Occupation still apply. If they do not, I remind the Minister that the Under-Secretary of State for War assured us during the earlier debate that, if the concessions were withdrawn as a result of Germany being granted independence, these men would be given an overseas allowance. It is a very sore point that most of the boys serving in Germany—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not appear to me to arise on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Fernyhough: Surely wages and salaries apply to the men serving in the Forces? Surely the question of their pay is dealt with in the Supplementary Estimate? All I am asking is whether the men now serving in Germany will be any worse off—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, but I understand the hon. Gentleman to be talking about the Forces in Germany. We are dealing with the Army Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Fernyhough: But this Supplementary Estimate would not be necessary if we had not the Forces there. The fact that we have them—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. He should limit his remarks to the Army.

Mr. Fernyhough: I will gladly limit my remarks to the Army.
I wish to know whether the Army, the officers and other ranks in Germany, are enjoying the same privileges and concessions now that Western Germany has been granted freedom and independence as they enjoyed as members of an occupation force. I think that we are entitled to an assurance on that matter. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise that one of the sorest grievances among the men serving in Germany is that it is not regarded as an overseas posting.

8.56 p.m.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a minute, but I desire to ask a question about Vote 4. I am not clear about how this Supplementary Estimate is supposed to be set out. Does it mean that the figure of £14 million under Subhead C of Vote 4 relating to regimental units is being spent on the employment of civilians? If so, I am interested to see it, because it is something which I have been advocating for a long time.
If that be so, I should like to ask whether these people are doing jobs which would not be necessary in the event of war. If they are doing jobs which are necessary in time of war, how are they to be replaced? It seems a large sum of money, and I hope that these people are doing the sort of civilian chores which have to be done in peace-time, but which are not necessary in war-time, and therefore releasing soldiers to do their proper jobs.
I wish to know whether any of the money under Subhead G, relating to Army educational establishments, is to be spent on secondary schools in Germany or only on primary schools. If it is not to be spent on secondary schools, if there are no Army educational establishments on a secondary school basis in Germany, either contemplated or estimated for, perhaps we may have a little more lucid answer than we received last time on the question of education of the children of men serving in the Forces.

8.58 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): There is one conclusion to be drawn from the remarks made about this Estimate. It is that either hon. Members have not been very clever in understanding it, or I have failed to make clear

the reason why it was presented. My excuse is that the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) seemed to understand fully what it was about and I should like to thank him for his perception in having read the Explanation before he read the Estimate. I accept the rebuke of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser), who has now left the Chamber, that it might have been better to put the Explanation first and the Estimate last.
Against the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), I would say that, having listened to as many of his speeches as of other hon. Members, I think that his last speech was his worst. He is under a misapprehension, both about the purpose and the explanation of the Supplementary Estimate. I am aware of the mental capacity of the hon. Member, and I do not think that, having read this Estimate, he could believe what he said.
At the outset, I think that I should repeat the reasons why we are asking for this Supplementary Estimate, and what it really means. The Estimate makes a token provision of £10 per Vote in order to obtain the authority of this House to appropriate, for Army Votes, the sums that have been made available by the Federal German Government for local supplies and services for the Army. Secondly, expenditure upon such supplies and services should be charged to Army Votes and accounted for through the Army Account.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not the Minister going to make some attempt to explain the colossal expenditure upon telegrams and telephones?

Mr. Head: The hon. Member is falling below his own level. If he takes the trouble to read HANSARD he will find that his intervention is not relevant to the explanation which I am trying to give. If he will wait for a few moments he will understand.
The second point is that the expenditure upon these supplies and services should be charged to Army Votes, and accounted for through the Army Account. The net result is that these sums are not increases. This is a transference of money which in the past has been paid for by Germany for supplies and services without being accountable to Parliament.


Now that the agreement has been signed we have changed the procedure, and that money, which is German money, is transferred to our Votes, so that it comes in the form of an increase. That does not mean that our telephone bill has gone up.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Member has not explained it at all. Why is it so much?

Mr. Head: The hon. Member is incorrigible. He had better wait for the debate on the Army Estimates, 1956–57, because I do not believe that anything I say now can make the position any clearer. I am certain that his hon. Friend the Member for Fulham—perhaps with my help—can make the position clear to the hon. Member if we have a talk with him later.

Mr. Stewart: I think that my hon. Friend has a point here in regard to telephones. I agree that the figures marked as increases in this Estimate are not really increases, but it is stated that that amount of money has been spent upon certain items in Germany. If we take the whole thing together, the amount that is so registered as an increase is £55 million. We may therefore conclude that £55 million has been spent in Germany upon these various items. As the right hon. Gentleman will find if he adds up all the items in the original Estimate, they total about £330 million, of which £55 million—that is to say, about onesixth—was in relation to expenditure in Germany. That has now to be provided for by this Supplementary Estimate.
The proportion in general seems to be about one-sixth. The curious thing about telegrams and telephones is that of a total of £5½ million spent by the Army in respect of telephones, as much as one-third appears to have been spent in Germany. One wonders why expenditure upon telephones in Germany should have been so much greater, in proportion, than expenditure upon other things.

Mr. Head: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He has given a very lucid explanation of his hon. Friend's point—if it was his point. It is a more subtle and more penetrating question, which I have not gone into in detail. I should say that the explanation may be that

costs in respect of staff, charges for telephones and communications in Germany were borne by the German Government, and also that there are four divisions stationed in that area and billeted all over Germany. This is far and away the largest single concentration of troops which we have anywhere in the world. In addition, three of those four divisions are armoured, which means that there is a great deal of dispersion and also a great deal of special communications for the armour. I cannot give hon. Members a really detailed explanation for what I admit is a subtle point. I accept his point, and if he wishes for further details of it, I shall be glad to supply them.
I do not wish to detain the House for too long, but I would like to answer some of the questions put to me. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) asked particularly about education in Germany and the significance of the figures. These figures are concerned with the German contribution to educational facilities in Germany and are additional to those paid by normal British sources for British staff and so on. Our object in the War Office, on behalf of the Army in Germany, is to retain a high standard of education in Germany. A great deal of the credit for this goes to the hon. Gentleman himself. I know his interest in this subject. The educational facilities in Germany are very greatly appreciated. Any help that the hon. Gentleman is able to give me in maintaining that standard we shall be delighted to accept.
I noticed that the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) managed to get brass hats into this Supplementary Estimate. He asked for clarification on one or two points, and I will try to explain them briefly. The civilians are entirely German. No British civilians are concerned in this matter. As to the R.A.S.C., Veterinary and Remount civilians, I will give the hon. and gallant Gentleman privately a breakdown of the figures. The R.A.S.C. is the prime cost in these matters, and not the Remount. The main cost is not on account of horses. In Germany and elsewhere the Army makes very considerable use of dogs in order to save manpower. This amount is primarily to do not with horses but with dogs, who go down to the veterinary—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an estimate of the amount spent in Germany on dogs?

Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman has been in this House for a number of years, so he knows that I cannot give that answer without notice. I will communicate with him on the matter if he wishes.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill put a query to me about welfare and asked whether it was for our Forces or for Germans. This is welfare for our own Forces and for that part of the welfare services which involves German employees. We employ within the general welfare service German employees, who come under the Occupation Forces. The same applies to higher formation training. On a large single exercise we may have certain German drivers or telephone operators who are employed temporarily for the training exercise. They also come under this Vote.

Mr. Simmons: Do they have access to any of the secrets of the formation?

Mr. Head: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if there is any question of secrecy or of cyphers we never employ Germans, and we use not merely British, but British who have been carefully screened.
The question of loss and damage is explained in the Estimate. It is for damage incurred in various ways and for compensation arising from training, traffic accidents and so forth. The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone were out of order so it would be unwise for me, especially as he is now out of the Chamber, to mention them further.
The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) was worried about increases in expenditure. I appreciate, that. I know he has been on a visit to Germany. He wanted to know whether, after this change, the Army would be worse off or better off. He asked further whether any loss in concessions and special privileges which they now have would be compensated for by local overseas allowance. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the only reason that there is now no L.O.A. in Germany is that because of the various concessions the cost of living in Germany is no higher than it is in this

country. Directly it is higher, that will be compensated for by L.O. A.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) asked me about civilians in Germany, and especially their rôle if war should break out. I wish to make quite clear that Germany is unique in this respect, that a proportion of what is normally called the tail of the Army is furnished in Germany by German civilans. That is to say, that in workshops and other base organisations we have what is called the G.S.O.—the German Service Organisation—which provides a large proportion of the tail. That is a very valuable and important contribution of the Germans. I hope and believe that it will continue, for it is a very great asset to the Army at the present time. We have organised in that way, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that were we to organise otherwise the strain on the Army and on the taxpayer would be very much greater. This contribution of skilled labour is one which the Army and, I think, the country value very much indeed.
I hope I have answered hon. Members, and in the event of our having to produce further Supplementary Estimates of this kind, I can assure the House that the explanation will come at the start and not at the finish.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey: The Secretary of State for Air has set out his Supplementary Estimate with great care, and I think that the Explanation which is to be found on page 5 is perfectly clear. It covers three points, and I should like to ask one or two questions on each of the three points.
The first one is the same point in substance as that which we have just been discussing in relation to the Army. As I understand it, the point is simply that in this case the expenditure of the Air Force in Germany is now brought into the Estimates on both sides of the account instead of being brought in on neither side of the account. That is the change


which has taken place here, and of course it is a change which in principle every hon. Member ought to welcome because it brings this expenditure into much more direct scrutiny in this House. It makes no difference one way or the other this year to the taxpayer, however. Whether, as the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) was saying, it will make some considerable difference in future years is another matter, and I shall be glad if the Under-Secretary of State can tell us something about the prospects.
The second question that I should like to ask on the German issue is one which my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) asked the Secretary of State for War, to which I do not think he got an answer. That is the question of figures which, on the face of it, look rather odd. As the first paragraph of the Explanation tells us, the German's contribution to all the Allied Forces has been £600 million a year. That comes down to under half—£270 million a year—of which the contribution to British Forces—Army and Air Force taken together—is £70 million.
That £70 million is apparently going to cover the whole of our costs in Germany, but how is that? Is it that the British share of the subvention of the Germans to the Allies as a whole has gone up sharply; or does it mean that we are economising very drastically in Germany in respect of our costs?
I can see no other reason why this very much reduced global contribution by the Germans suffices now to cover our whole expenditure in Germany. That is the point which my hon. Friend was making. It is an interesting and curious one, and the House ought to be informed about it, because otherwise some of the apprehensions of my hon. Friend that the conditions of the British personnel, whether in the Army or the Royal Air Force, in Germany will deteriorate very sharply would seem to be justified.
The second question is whether this German contribution, which is to ensure we are sharing the whole Army and Air Force expenditure in Germany this year, is to continue, or shall we, as the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone apprehended, face in future years a real net increase on our Service Estimates? My

hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) thought that that would happen this year, and he was wrong. It may be he will turn out to be right next year or the year after. Those are questions of substance about this part of the Estimate concerned with Germany, whether in relation to the Army or the Royal Air Force.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I hope that my right hon. Friend will press this matter, because as will be seen that in paragraph 4 of the Explanation it is stated:
This Supplementary Estimate has been drawn up on the basis that the expenditure to be incurred in the period 6th May, 1955, to the end of the current United Kingdom financial year in respect of the local supplies and services ordered by the British forces in that period will be covered by the British forces' share of the support funds.
I was under the impression that that was the total cost, and not a major cost.

Mr. Strachey: No, I think it is not quite as simple as that, but I agree with my hon. Friend's point of substance—whether the net charge will in future years fall on us in respect of these transactions although it does not do so this year. That is the essential point.
The second point about the Royal Air Force Supplementary Estimate is what I would call the barter transaction which we have entered into with the United States Government. It is most interesting and curious, and though I do not say it is necessarily objectionable I think we ought to be told about it. As I read it—and it is not a very simple matter, and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—what it adds up to in the end is that the United States Government are going to pay us rent for houses which we build and they are going to pay us that rent in tobacco.

Mr. Cyril Bence: And a pound a year.

Mr. Strachey: That, of course, is a nominal rent.

Mr. Bence: I think it is.

Mr. Strachey: We shall do a little better than that. What will happen apparently will be that we shall buy 15 million dollars' worth of tobacco and we shall not use any dollars in that transaction. That is


a clear gain because it will not cost us anything in foreign currency. The United States Government, having received the sterling equivalent of that, will hand it over to the British Government, the British Government will build the houses, and will then let them to the American Government for £1 a year. As I say, we should get the tobacco not for nothing but on the basis of a quid pro quo for providing houses in this country. That is why I use the phrase that the American Government, in effect, will pay us a tobacco rent for these houses.
I believe that if the Under-Secretary of State for War thinks it out, he will find that that is the net effect of the transaction, though I do not pretend to be sure. I am not objecting to it. It does not save us a sterling sum, but it saves us an expenditure in dollars, and I am glad that the freehold of the houses is to remain in the hands of the British Government. That is a good thing, because whatever may be our views about the American bases in this country, I do not think that we would want the American Government to acquire a freehold property in these houses. It is better that the houses should remain the freehold of the British Government, let to the American Government on whatever basis may be agreed.
I wish to deal with a small point. We are to authorise an increase of £10,000 in the grant to the Royal Society towards expenditure on research in pure meteorology. I should have thought that that was a very desirable purpose. I do not suggest for a moment that it is not, but I am rather surprised that we were not told about it in the Air Estimates which were placed before us not long ago. There was an interesting paragraph on the subject of meteorology in the Secretary of State's Explanatory Memorandum on the Air Estimates, but that Memorandum told us nothing about the grant to the Royal Society. I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us a little more about it. I believe that he is rightly and justly proud of the meteorological service, which has been steadily developing.
When I held the Under-Secretary's office at the beginning of the 1945 Parliament, it was interesting to see the work of the Meteorological Office, which is the special responsibility of the Under-Secretary, and I am sure that the whole House will be interested to hear what the

Royal Society is contracting to do or what expectations it is holding out to the Government relating to the use of this money on, I take it, meteorological theory rather than meteorological practice. I cannot help feeling that the House would like the questions which I have put to the Under-Secretary answered before we approve of this Supplementary Estimate.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Air will give us a very clear explanation of the expenses incurred on the American Air Force in this country. I should like to have the tobacco transaction explained. After having considered the implications of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee. West (Mr. Strachey), I should have thought it cheaper to exchange Scotch whisky for American tobacco rather than have matters complicated in this housing transaction.
We are told in the Explanation of this Supplementary Estimate that,
Her Majesty's Government for their part have agreed to provide houses for the use of United States military forces in the United Kingdom at a cost equivalent to the value of the aid.
Why is it necessary to provide houses for American military personnel in this country?
I speak for an area which has a very considerable number of American airmen in this vicinity, at Prestwick. I should like to know something about this housing transaction for which expenditure is demanded in this Estimate. How many of these 1,600 houses will be built in or near Prestwick, for example? What is going to be the cost? Are they to be built by the Ministry of Works or by the local authority? In any case, if we start building houses for American personnel in the neighbourhood of Prestwick there will be considerable questioning and criticism from local people. Do we understand that the American forces have come there to stay permanently? Is it necessary that special houses should be built for this purpose?
I was travelling down from Prestwick the other day with a very charming American lady who said, "I have come over to join my husband, who is in the Army of Occupation in this country."


That is a very interesting point of view. In the locality people are wondering whether the American Army of Occupation is to remain permanently and why it is necessary to build special houses. In the neighbourhood of Prestwick Aerodrome there is ample accommodation in boarding houses and hotels. Why then is it necessary where there is ample accommodation for the greater part of the year for building labour and resources to be diverted to building houses for what seems to be regarded as the Army of Occupation? We are told that
The houses will remain the property of Her Majesty's Government and will be let to the United States military authorities at a nominal rent of £1 for each house.
When that is known in the locality a large number of people will want to disguise themselves as American personnel in order to get houses at £1 a year for each house. How was that price fixed? Are we really getting the better part of the bargain in this interchange of tobacco against houses? I can foresee that this will not add greatly to the popularity of the American Army of occupation in a district where so many now seem to think that diplomatic immunity applies to such things as speeding in motor cars. I am not at all convinced that it is a wise policy to increase expenditure on houses for American personnel.
I am not at all anti-American. I have a very large number of friends in the American military forces in this country. I travel more than anyone else between Prestwick and Burtonwood. Every time I go to and from my constituency I come across many American military personnel. They do not want special houses built for them in Ayrshire or Burtonwood. The great anxiety of these American personnel is to go back to their homes in Texas or in the Middle West.
American personnel in this country are not wanting special houses for themselves and their families because they realise that in the event of hostilities the American Air Force in this country will be infinitely more dangerous than it will be in Texas or the Middle West. American military personnel ask what civil defence there is in this country for their families if they bring them from America. I am convinced that if the Under-Secretary of State for Air

took a gallup poll of the American airmen in this country that, far from wishing to see houses built for them, even at a nominal rent of £1 per house, they would opt to go back to America where their families would be infinitely safer than in this country.
What makes these house necessary? It is because there has been a demand that the Americans should bring their wives and children with them. We know that when soldiers are stationed on foreign soil without their families trouble occurs. There has been in the neighbourhood of Prestwick and Ayr a considerable amount of trouble, which has been reflected in some unsavoury cases in the police courts, because American airmen are here without their wives. That will not be solved by merely bringing over a comparatively small number of selected families to live in selected houses.
I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), whose constituency abuts on Prestwick Airport, will know that there will be considerable criticism because special houses are being built at a nominal rent of £1 per house when there are so many families on the waiting list. These houses absorb labour and the resources of the building industry in that part of the world. Although we have made progress in housing there, there are still large waiting lists, and the local people think that they should come first.
So I suggest that this whole item of expenditure should be examined again. The Under-Secretary of State for Air should take this up with the American Air Force in this country, and put to them the point of view that it would be far better for the American personnel in this country to be taken back to a safer base in the Middle West of America.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I should like to join with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in protesting at this agreement to build houses for American Service men in this country. I am not one to object to the Americans being here, or to their having anything that they want, but I do object to the Government, of which the hon. Gentleman is a Member, curtailing the right of my local authority to build


houses for the people who really need them, while at the same time granting to the Air Ministry facilities to provide houses for people who have not the same right to them as the people on whose behalf I am speaking tonight.
I have people in my division who have lived in slum conditions for generations. Because of the attitude of the Government, they will continue to live in those conditions because the Minister of Housing and Local Government is cutting down the number of houses to be built by local authorities for rental. I say that it is infamous that the Air Ministry, at a time when there is not the building material available to meet all the claims that are being made upon it, should have given the go ahead sign and allowed further claims to be made on limited resources which will not be used for the benefit of our own people.
I hope that the Air Ministry will think again on this matter. If it does not, I want it to understand that this will cause a tremendous agitation throughout the country from the people who are waiting patiently year after year for houses and living in abominable conditions. Apparently they are to go on living in those conditions because the Government are making arrangements of this kind.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I was never more astonished than when I read the Explanation contained in the Supplementary Estimate. For some years we have had propaganda put out by the party opposite about State trading. We were told that the experts should be allowed to import wheat, for example, Now the hierarchy of the Air Force is importing tobacco. We have this bartering between the Air Ministry and the tobacco interests of the U.S.A. We do not know whether this tobacco is to be in the form of Havana cigars, Virginian leaf or what. By this barter agreement between two State Departments, the Air Ministry is to build houses to pay for the tobacco provided by the American tobacco interests.
I would prefer the tobacco to come through the normal channels of trade, and I am sure that the party opposite would prefer it too. I cannot understand why people who believe in private enterprise and who say that the merchants should do the importing, support a Vote of this

kind and allow this sort of transaction right outside the ordinary channels of trade. Fifteen million dollars worth of tobacco is to come into this country, and there is not a murmur from the other side of the House. When, during the days of the Labour Government, we imported produce through State organisations, there were complaints enough, but now not one voice is raised by the party opposite against this Air Ministry transaction.
Many of our own troops are abroad, and many of them have to live under canvas. A good many are billeted in very ordinary quarters. Why should we have to provide what appear from the Estimate to be luxury conditions for the American personnel? We are given no information of the standard of the houses. In the last two years, our own housing standard has been cut. Do the houses which the Air Ministry is building for American Air Force personnel comply with our old standards of housing or with the new standards? Are some of the houses for rankers, with their wives and children—say, five rooms and a bathroom—or do some of them have eight rooms for the high-ranking officers? What style of house is to be built?
The average rent per annum is to be £1. In my constituency, people live in two rooms and kitchens and have suffered an increase much heavier than that. The annual increase in rent for some tenements in Clydebank is about £13 a year. We are given no description of these houses the rent for which is to be £1 a year. It will take about 2,000 years to pay back their capital cost. If I could be told that the rent is to be more in keeping with rents in this country, I should be very pleased to know. Are the houses being built by the Air Ministry itself? Are they being built by direct labour or are they to be put out to contract to the big contractors, all at the same price?
A case was brought to my attention only a few days ago which I hope in due course to raise in the House. A local authority in East Dumbartonshire received tenders from people supplying building material. Six contractors submitted exactly the same price for ten items. How are these houses for the Americans to be financed? Are they to be built by public tender or by the Air Ministry, using their own building trade workers? I hope that these houses will


not be built until we have dealt with monopoly practices in the building trade because we might be able to build their houses cheaper then, and instead of an initial sum of £250,000 being required, we might reduce it to £200,000.
The Minister should take back this Estimate and cut out all the nonsense about barter trade and tobacco and building houses by one of the most spendthrift Departments of the State. The Air Force expenditure in the last twelve months has been fantastic and no one seems to know what we have got for it. Apparently we are to get 15 million dollars' worth of tobacco, but we do not even know whether it will be in the form of Havana cigars or Virginia leaf; and the American troops are to get 1,600 houses but we do not know where they are to be. Could we have some information on this matter?

9.42 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: It is a serious matter that we are to build 1,600 houses during the coming year from the point of view of those areas where there is still an acute housing shortage, so may we know where they are to be built? Are any to be built in Scotland, and especially in the area mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)?
I have no doubt that this will not be popular, but for different reasons given by my colleague. I heard the last part of his speech when he was referring to certain things that had happened. I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend did not give the impression that American airmen are unwelcome or unpopular in that part of the country, because they are not. As far as their behaviour is concerned, I do not think it is worse than that of any troops in any other part of the country.
Indeed, these troops enjoy a certain popularity in certain places in Ayr, which is a seaside resort, for the reason that the local people are used to letting their houses. At the present time these Americans are occupying private houses that the people are glad to let to them because they pay a little more than, for instance, visitors from the Glasgow Fair.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend noticed it but the columns of the "Ayrshire Post" a few months ago were full of complaints, particularly from small

hotel proprietors who had some American airmen billeted on them because, owing to a change of policy with a change of commanding officer, they were taken away and put into a hotel run by Butlins. So the town of Ayr is certainly conscious of the value to them in terms of money of these American airmen.
There will be a certain amount of resentment, however, if building materials that could have been used for local authority building are used for erecting these 1,600 houses or any share that comes to that part of the country. I do not know whether the Minister realises it, but already this year we have seen a falling off in the amount of local authority building to meet the needs of the local population of Scotland—

Mr. Fernyhough: And in England.

Mr. Ross: Naturally I am concerned about my own problems. Therefore it will be a matter of regret if a new policy comes into operation which will still further hamper the building of necessary houses around Ayr, Prestwick, Kilmarnock or in other parts of the country.
This is a concealed form of dollar aid, a rather roundabout form of American charity—we are short of dollars to buy the tobacco and, in exchange, we build houses for the American Forces. But what happens to the houses eventually? Are these houses to be handed over to us without any further cost to us?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward) indicated assent.

Mr. Ross: They are? I think that proves my point that this is American aid. Eventually, these houses will fall to the lot of the local authority, or will it be the Air Ministry? Is it the intention that these houses shall be handed over to the local authority? Although I notice from the Memorandum that the American forces in this country will pay for their maintenance, what about the actual administration? Will the local authorities be responsible for administration in regard to repairs and maintenance in the meantime?
Wherever the houses are to be built, I should like to be assured that there will be consultation with the local authorities, and that the whole position will be made clear to the public in regard to the terms and conditions of the building of these


houses and what eventually will happen to them. Only in that way can we avoid the undesirable feelings of dismay and disappointment that this thing should come about. I hope the Minister will be able to give the answers to some of these points.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Ward: I do not think I need spend very long on the point about the German contribution, because it was raised only by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). I will deal with the two points which the right hon. Gentleman raised.
In his first question, he asked me about the future. My information on that is that this particular agreement that we are discussing this evening lasts only until May, 1956, and that after that a new agreement will have to be negotiated. That has not yet been done, and so I cannot tell what the future will be. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's second question about the difference in the size of our share, the point there is that the German contribution used to include expenditure on capital works, and now it is mainly devoted to the maintenance and repair of existing buildings.
The right hon. Gentleman and several other hon. Members raised the question of the American tobacco—housing transaction, and I should like to deal with it at some length so that, if I can, I may remove any doubts that exist in the minds of hon. Members about it. It is explained in the printed Estimate that the expenditure this year on these houses can be met from sums already voted, and therefore it is only a notional Estimate which comes in for this year. Because the proposal for building these houses was not put before Parliament when the original Air Estimates were being discussed, it is, of course, necessary to bring it before the House now. We could not put it before the House at that time because negotiations with the United States were not then completed.
In common with the British practice, the United States authorities allow the families of members of their armed forces to join them at overseas stations, and, as everybody knows, families of United States service men have been in this country for some time. Previously, there has been no official provision of quarters for them, and therefore they have had to

find accommodation as best they could and on their own initiative. In view of the general housing shortage in this country, this has not been easy for them to do, and in many cases accommodation near the bases has been almost unprocurable. Accommodation has had to be found some distance away, and that is very undesirable both on operational and administrative grounds. It will be generally agreed that, on the whole, the presence of families conduces to high morale and good behaviour and also to general good relations between visiting forces and their neighbours in this country.
The United States Congress did not choose to appropriate funds directly for the provision of married quarters for United States Forces here. They agreed to do it in a different way. They agreed that up to certain limits the proceeds of the disposal of surplus agricultural commodities could be devoted to this purpose. In this instance, the 15 million dollars' worth of surplus tobacco is to be imported from the United States and the sterling equivalent of this is to be deposited to the account of the American Government in this country.
That sterling is to be made available for transfer in aid of Air Votes. Our part of the agreement is to build the houses for the United States families at a cost equivalent to the value of this aid. Hon. Gentlemen who have been worried about this nominal rent of £1 will realise that the capital cost of building these houses is being borne by the Americans, because they are devoting money to it which they have received from us from the sale of tobacco. We cannot ask them to pay the capital cost of the houses and also to pay a high—

Mr. Ross: The rateable value of a house in Scotland is based upon the rental. The local authorities are going to have quite a quibble about the rates, if the rent is only £1.

Mr. Ward: These houses are not only being paid for out of capital provided by the Americans in the form of sterling but, as was pointed out, they become the freehold property of the British Government.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: When?

Mr. Ward: When the Americans no longer require them they become available for British people. I cannot tell the


House whether they will be taken over by the local authorities or not; that has not been decided. The point is that, whoever takes them over for the purpose of making them available to the British population, they will represent additional accommodation. Therefore, I cannot see that it matters very much at this stage whether they are made available to the population by the local authorities or by someone else.

Mr. Ross: An important consideration still remains. It may be a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not realise that Scottish law is slightly different from English law. If they are taken by the Air Ministry, the Air Ministry will be liable for owners' rates in Scotland. I should like to know whether provision has been made to pay the owners' rates for these houses in the area where they are to be built?

Mr. Ward: I am not certain about that, but certainly the Americans are responsible for the upkeep and general maintenance of these houses while they are in occupation.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) were anxious that the provision of these houses should not upset the provision of houses for the British population. We have borne that very much in mind. There are two points which I should like to make. The first is that of course there are already large numbers of American families in this country occupying living accommodation and, to that extent, when these houses are taken over by American families the accommodation which those families now occupy will be made available.
Secondly, we are being most careful to minimise the demands on traditional materials and labour required by the local housing authorities. That has been laid down expressly in the specifications upon which we are seeking tenders from the contractors. We specify non-traditional building methods and materials. As hon. Gentlemen know, most local housing authorities now prefer to build houses of the traditional type. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire asked who will build the houses. The answer is that the Air Ministry Works Directorate will employ contractors to do the work.
I have dealt with the other points raised, except about the location of the houses. At this stage I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to discuss their location. There are sixteen different locations which we have in mind, but I would prefer not to discuss the details. We are still having discussions with the local planning authorities, and I do not desire to say anything which might prejudice those discussions.
I will now turn for a moment to the third point in the Estimate, the grant-in-aid to the Royal Society. One or two hon. Members have shown an interest—

Mr. Fernyhough: Before leaving the point, can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea of how long the agreement about houses we are building for American troops will be effective? Is there any limitation placed on it?

Mr. Ward: No, Sir. That, clearly, must depend on how long the international situation makes it necessary for our American friends to stay here and help us. So long as they are here, the houses they have paid for will be available for them.
Now may I touch for a moment on this meteorological point, the grant of £10,000 to the Royal Society. It is intended as a first instalment towards the cost of a four-year programme of research into the conditions of the upper atmosphere. Until now, the instruments on which we have relied for our observations into the upper atmosphere have been carried in free flying balloons. But these balloons are limited to a height of about 80,000 to 100,000 feet and we have a limited knowledge of what goes on above that height.
The development of the rocket has, happily, offered a possibility of sending up these instruments to a much greater height and so opened up the way to detailed observations at levels which up to now we have been unable to reach. This expenditure will be partly on the research into this method of carrying instruments and partly on the provision of rockets to carry them, and, of course, on the provision of the actual instruments.

Mr. Strachey: The explanation of the hon. Gentleman is interesting. Will the results obtained by the Royal Society be freely published, or will they be held for security reasons? It may prove of great


value to science as a whole and the country generally if they could be published.

Mr. Ward: I should not like to commit myself on that point. So far as I know the Americans have never felt it necessary not to publish their findings, and I dare say that we shall follow their example in this matter. But I should like to check up on that, because there may be something I have not thought about.
The new programme on which we shall embark will be carried out in close cooperation with the R.A.E. at Farnborough, who will help in the design and production of the rockets and be responsible for firing them. The analysis of the results, the development of the project, and so on, will be done mainly at the universities. At the moment there are four universities which have associated themselves with the programme—London, Birmingham, Swansea and Queen's University, Belfast.
With that brief explanation I think that I have covered the points raised in the debate. If any further points occur to hon. or right hon. Gentlemen later, I hope that they will write to me, and I will try to answer them.

WAYS AND MEANS [12th July]

Resolution reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, the sum of £35,974,672 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. H. Brooke.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION)

Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-six and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1953–54

Resolutions reported,

I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1954, that the aggregate Expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services over the net Expenditure is £6,187,988 5s. 7d. viz.:—



£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
16,015,397
17
3


Total Deficits
9,827,409
11
8


Net Surplus
£6,187,988
5
7

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised:

(1) the application of so much of the realised surplus on Vote 10 for Navy Services as is necessary to meet the net deficit of £1,315,250 19s. 4d. on Vote 15 that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts, 1949 and 1953.

(2) the application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.

1. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

[For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1955, cols. 1877–78.]

II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended 31st day of March, 1954, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £42,667,050 2s. 4d. viz.:—



£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
49,650,553
6
1


Total Deficits
6,983,503
3
9


Net Surplus
£42,667,050
2
4

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised:

(1) the application of so much of the realised surplus on Vote 8 for Army Services as is necessary to meet the net deficit of £4,139,114 2s. 7d. on Vote 11 that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts, 1949 and 1953.

(2) the application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.

2. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1955, cols. 1879–80.]

III. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1954, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net expenditure is £79,760,849 16s. 11d. viz.:—



£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
85,106,577
7
4


Total Deficits
5,345,727
10
5


Net Surplus
£79,760,849
16
11

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.

3. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

[For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1955; cols. 1881–82.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Before we sanction this expenditure I should like to ask the Admiralty spokesman if he can explain whether any of this expenditure has been incurred in the recent exercises in the North Sea. I have before me a report of those exercises, which presumably, cost a considerable amount of public money, and I want to know if any of that expenditure is covered in this Resolution.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is mistaken as to the period covered by these Resolutions. They cover the year 1953–54. It is merely a question of applying surpluses in one Vote to deficiencies in another.

Mr. Hughes: Perhaps I shall be in order if I ask if any of the vessels in respect of which expenditure was sanctioned in these Resolutions were involved in the exercises.

Mr. Speaker: It is not customary to raise points of detail upon these Resolutions.

Mr. Hughes: Is it in order for me to ask for an explanation from the Admiralty upon this point?

Mr. Speaker: It is not in order to do that. These are commonly called Monk Resolutions, and they merely authorised the transference of surpluses from one Vote to deficiencies in another Vote. Parliament is asked for no more money.

Mr. John Dugdale: I understand that this is not a matter for the Admiralty but for the Financial Secretary. Is it not in order for my hon. Friend or anybody else to ask the Financial Secretary some questions upon it? If the Financial Secretary is responsible and is here surely we are quite entitled to ask him certain questions.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that anyone can shed any particular light upon this matter beyond what may be gleaned from a perusal of the document. It is purely an accounting matter. We are not being asked for any more money.

Mr. Hughes: Is not the question of whether there has been wise expenditure of this money in order?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is, in these circumstances.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: You have just reminded us, Mr. Speaker, that we are dealing with the Monk Resolutions—an item of Parliamentary procedure which is less generally well known than it deserves to be. In a previous Parliament, when I was a newly-elected Member, I remember inquiring of a more senior colleague what was the nature of a Monk Resolution, and being assured that it was something to do with monasteries, which was always introduced in a Session following a Dissolution.
In fact, it deals with the process of virement, a power of the Service Departments to use the Service Estimates to ensure that money which they have not


spent under one Vote is used to meet a deficiency on another Vote. We understand that that has been done in each of the three Services. The fact that they have done it has been reported to the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given his approval to it.
The fact that he has given his approval has been reported to the Public Accounts Committee, which has approved the Chancellor's approval. The fact that the Public Accounts Committee has so approved the Chancellor's approval has been approved in a Committee of this House, known as the Standing Committee on Army, Navy and Air Force Expenditure.
We are now considering the Report of that Committee, which tells us that it has approved the action of the Public Accounts Committee in approving the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in approving the action of the War Office in exercising its power of virement.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will tell us to be careful, in any question we address to the Financial Secretary, to remember that this is an accounting and financial matter. I think I am observing that rule if I ask a question which is suggested to me by page III of the Army Appropriation Account, where we find, for example, that the power of virement has been exercised, and that the Financial Secretary is answerable to the House for the fact that it has been exercised in a matter affecting Votes 11 and 8.
What appears to have happened is this. Vote 11 deals with additional married quarters. Normally the Army gets help in providing married quarters at home from the Consolidated Fund, under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act, but on this occasion, instead of getting that help from the Consolidated Fund under that Act the Army has used the surplus arising under Vote 8, Subhead A. Does that mean that the Army has lost a claim to funds under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act that it might otherwise have exercised, and that in the long run a less sum of money will be spent in providing married quarters at home for the Army than would otherwise have been the case? If so, it is to be regretted.
This House passed the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act because it realised that the provision under ordinary financial arrangements for building Army

married quarters was not adequate. Now, apparently, there has been approval of the use of the power of virement in a way that means that the Army has not made use of facilities which it could have enjoyed under that Act.
Does this use of the power of virement mean that in the long run there is a net loss of funds to the Army for the provision of married quarters? The position is the more remarkable in that the surplus under Vote 8, subhead A—from which arises the surplus which was appropriated to Vote 11—arose in part because less was spent on building barracks at home than the Army had originally intended to spend. That is a somewhat remarkable position.
We have been told that it is the policy to reorganise the number of men in the Army so that there shall be a greater proportion of them at home, and so that a strategic reserve may be built up. Surely that will require greater expenditure on barrack and accommodation for the Army at home. Yet here we are told that the Army is using this process of virement, because it has not been able to build the amount of housing at home that had been planned during this financial year.
The matter is clearly set out in the Appropriation Account on page 16, Note A, where there is a reference to Appendix II. If we study that Appendix we find that a considerably smaller sum was spent on building accommodation for Army personnel at home than had been expected. What is the position for, on the one hand, we are planning to build up a strategic reserve at home and on the other, we are not spending the amount of money which the Army hoped and planned to spend on accommodating these men? It is known that already the Army is experiencing something of a tight fit in relation to its home accommodation.
What I am concerned about is this example of the use of the power of virement, because permission having been given by Parliament to the Treasury to use this system, the Treasury is doing something quite different from what Parliament originally intended. For what purpose was that power given? It was to make allowance for the fact that expenditure in the Service Departments cannot be as nicely calculated as is the case


in the civilian Departments. The contingencies that Service Departments have to face are less predictable.
It is to meet that kind of thing that the power of virement was given. I will not weary the House by quoting particular examples nor run the risk of getting out of order by doing so, but I will suggest that the Treasury is here giving permission for the use of virement on a scale and in a manner quite beyond that originally intended by Parliament. If we go through the Appropriation Account in detail we find, for example, in page 4, Vote 1, subhead B, that the average Regular strength of the Army was less than was expected, and on page 5, subhead N, we find that fewer men extended their service than was anticipated.
What does that mean? It means that the Army was not able to recruit as many Regulars as was expected. So we are getting an Army with fewer Regular soldiers in it and a smaller proportion of experienced men than the Government hoped for, an event which underlines the warning given from this side of the House time and time again.
On page 14, subhead D, we find very considerable underspending on warlike stores, again illustrating a point repeatedly made from this side of the House, that the Government, while maintaining large masses of men in the Armed Forces, are failing to equip them. They ask Parliament to vote money for equipping those men, and then they find themselves incapable of spending the money. If we were able genuinely, and with regard to the safety of the country, to spend less on the Armed Forces, we should all rejoice, but there is no cause for rejoicing in this underspending when we maintain the men but cannot spend as much as we should to equip them properly. That is what this under-spending on warlike stores, recorded on page 14—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Gentleman is going rather beyond what we are allowed. I would remind him that in the Navy, Army and Air Force Expenditure Committee criticism of the system of applying surpluses has been ruled out of order.

Mr. Stewart: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I always feel a certain sense of regret when we debate this Resolution because when I was on the other side of the House, if I remember rightly, Rulings were somewhat different, and Service Ministers were expected to reply in some detail.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The practice was condemned from the Chair.

Mr. Stewart: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that is so, but I am sure that you will sympathise with me when I say that when I was on the other side of the House I had to answer all the questions, and now I am precluded from asking them. Although I fully recognise that the Ruling you have given is entirely correct, it seems to me that it bears rather hardly on myself and on some of my colleagues on this side of the House.
I will not transgress further on your patience, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I will therefore conclude by suggesting to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that in his exercise of power in this elaborate chain of approvals which runs from the War Office to the Chancellor, from the Chancellor to the Public Accounts Committee, and from the Public Accounts Committee to the Standing Committee on Navy, Army and Air Force Expenditure, and so to this House, the exercise which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made of the power of virement is one which, under an apparently innocuous financial form, is in danger of disguising from the House the fact that we are getting an unbalanced, ill-developed Force, justifying in many ways the criticisms that have been repeatedly made from this side of the House.

10.17 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) on having achieved the conspicuous feat of finding a substantial point on the Money Resolution which it is in order to debate in the House. I should be out of order in discussing a number of the matters to which he referred, but I should like to remind him, as his hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was reminded, that all this refers to the affairs of two years ago. It is, therefore, a


fundamental fallacy to draw conclusions from these figures or these notes as to what is happening today. This is purely an accounting procedure, and the House is being asked whether it will agree to a Report from the Committee that certain transfers should be sanctioned.
The principal point that the hon. Member raised concerns the financing of married quarters. He will remember that under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans Act), 1949, as amended by the similar Act of 1953, married quarters can be financed by loan to an amount not exceeding £75 million, that amount being payable by annuities from Service Votes. Quarters that do not qualify for loan continue to be provided for in the normal works Votes of the Service Departments.
The hon. Gentleman has raised the question whether it is proper by the exercise of virement to pay by transfers from other votes money which would under the original Estimates have been raised by loan, and that is the question which I want to answer. He may not recollect it, but the question thus using savings on other Votes to reduce the amount of borrowing which would otherwise be necessary for these special married quarters was referred to the Public Accounts Committee some years ago, indeed in the time when he and his right hon. and hon. Friends formed the Government of this country.
The Public Accounts Committee in their Second Report in the 1950–51 Session ruled that if the Service Departments:
…wish to use any savings which may accrue on the ordinary Works Votes to finance the construction of special married quarters under the new Votes,…
they should be allowed to do so by the use of virement
if the Estimates for the year have stated that the estimated allocation from loans for special married quarters may be varied by the application of savings on the ordinary Works Votes.
It will be found that the condition laid down by the Public Accounts Committee was fulfilled in the 1953–54 Estimates and therefore I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Member for Fulham that we have been acting entirely in order in accordance with the principles and rules laid down by the Public Accounts Committee. I would not be asking the House this evening to approve this Motion if I were

not satisfied that the Public Accounts Committee had had its requirements met at every point.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Mr. John Strachey: We are reminded that we are discussing Resolutions which immortalise the name of Mr. Monk. I take it that the purpose of this annual discussion is to ascertain whether in the past—as the Financial Secretary has said—this right of virement was exercised properly and within the limits which it was intended by the Monk Resolutions, or whether it was improperly exercised. That is why the Government have to ask for the approval of the House. If that was not the proper matter for the House to discuss there would be nothing to discuss, and the Government would not annually have to obtain the approval of the House.
Therefore, the material, and strictly financial point which is before us is whether virement has taken place as between the different items of the accounts in this Estimate in a reasonable way and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has said, in a way which carries out the original intentions of the Monk Resolutions. That intention was that the Service Departments, with their specially varying needs, should be able to balance from surplus accounts their deficits in particular Votes.
I submit that that must be the point which we are now discussing and that when one considers the annual turnouts in the Air Estimates and the accounts for 1953–54, it is asking a great deal of the House to regard those transactions as a legitimate and ordinary instance of virement within the meaning of the Monk Resolutions. What happens? We find it clearly in pages ii and iii of the Appropriations Account that the surpluses involved are of a magnitude of £78 million and the deficits of £600,000. This is a case of virement which we are to discuss and it is, I claim, differing in order of magnitude to that degree. Therefore, I put it to the Financial Secretary that that is quite outside the ordinary conception of virement as the balancing of items between different Votes in the Air Ministry.
We know what the result was. Because there were mis-estimates in the appropriations in aid no less than £79 million was surrendered to the Exchequer. We are not concerned with the realities which those figures mark. The realities were the extraordinary inability of the Government at that time to get aircraft delivered. What we are concerned with is the degree of mis-estimating what went on and which now has to be squeezed into the Monk Resolutions and come to us as an instance of virement.
I think the House really has a right to ask the Financial Secretary to tell us whether that degree of virement, that degree of inbalance between surplus and debit on the accounts, is anything like the sort of thing which was ever contemplated as permissible under the Monk Resolutions. We see the accounts set out in this very posthumous way, and this is the first opportunity the House has had of discussing the accounts as they finally come before it. We must convict the Government of an extraordinarily high degree of mis-estimating, which makes a profound effect on the Budget as a whole when it comes to £78 million on the Air Estimates.
We suspect that when next year we have the following year's accounts for 1954–55 they will show something of the same order. I know the technical difficulties, but we ask the Financial Secretary whether the Service Departments, in this case the Air Ministry, can be brought to give their estimates somewhere nearer the correct amount, not only item by item, but as a whole, because it seems rather an abuse of the right of virement to ask us to swallow differences in accounts of the order of £78 million.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Brooke: I understand the right hon. Member is criticising the magnitude of the figures which are here brought out. I quite agree that a surplus of £85 million is a considerable sum. I do not think the House ought to be altogether regretful that we managed to save £85 million at some period two years ago, and it certainly is not possible on the Monk Resolution to examine the question which, I think, the right hon. Member is seeking to raise, whether we got good value for our money.

Mr. Strachey: The right hon. Gentleman used the word "save" which itself begs the question because we know the sums were not spent by deliberate act of the Government because of their inability to get the aircraft delivered. That is shown by Votes 6, 7 and 8.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am very sorry, but we cannot discuss the surplus.

Mr. Strachey: The right hon. Gentleman raised it by using the word "save."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the right hon. Gentleman was encouraged.

Mr. Brooke: I was using the word in the strictly financial sense. As far as arithmetic is concerned, there was undoubtedly a saving. What we are asking the House to do is to agree that total deficits amounting to £5⅓ million should be covered by transfers from these surpluses. That is really not at all an unreasonable action for us to take. In fact, the deficit which we are now asking the House thus to cover is just about 1·1 per cent. of the total original net grant, including the Supplementary Estimate, for the Air Ministry in the year 1953–54. So that we have not been incurring any substantial deficit.
It was somewhat different in the days when the right hon. Gentleman was connected with the conduct of these matters. I notice that in the year 1946–47 the total deficit that had to be covered by a Monk Resolution—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think we can go back on to that.

Mr. Brooke: I thought I was being criticised as regards the relative magnitude of these figures. It was solely on that point that I wished to defend myself.
If I have sufficiently established my argument that £5⅓ million is a relatively small deficit to cover in relation to the total of the original Vote, I have no hesitation in asking the House to agree—this is the one thing which is before the House—that it is entirely proper that those deficits should be met out of the surpluses that are show.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION

10.32 p.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Commander Allan Noble): I beg to move,
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation, for the year ending on 31st March, 1956, presented to this House on 16th June, be approved.
I hope it will be convenient if I move the Motion formally, and then I will try subsequently to answer any points that hon. or right hon. Members might raise.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: We have just been discussing matters which involve a large expenditure of money and are exceedingly complex. We turn now for a few moments to discuss matters which involve only very few people and are relatively simple in content. But although they involve few people, they are nevertheless of importance to those few people, and it is interesting that every year, in spite of all its other preoccupations, the House should take the trouble—indeed, past Parliaments have seen to it that it should have to take the trouble—to go in detail into the affairs of a single school and of two charities.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions about this school and about these charities, in which those of us who have been concerned with the Admiralty take some interest. My first question concerns the expenditure on what are called the Northern Estates. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the charity owns large properties in the North. The interesting thing is that although the figures are relatively small, the expenditure on these estates has, as I see it, gone up this year by approximately 30 per cent., which seems a very considerable increase. I may be wrong, but that is how it appears to me.
What is the reason for this increase? I hope, in particular, that part of it is due to expenditure on the upkeep and improvement of farm buildings, cottages, and things which eventually may make the estates more valuable and will be of use in helping agricultural production and

improving the conditions of people who live on the estates. I hope that in this case the Admiralty will be a good landlord, and as good a landlord as any in the vicinity.
I turn now to the question of Holbrook School, which, apart from the pensions granted to seamen through the funds, is the greatest cause of the expenditure which we have to consider today. I wish to raise two points, one of which has aroused a certain amount of national interest.
The smaller point is about the salaries paid to house matrons. I note that house matrons receive a salary of £175 to £250 a year. Admittedly they also receive free board and lodgings, but when their salary is compared with the salary payable to ordinary domestic staff it will be found to be relatively small. It may well be time that the salaries should be reviewed in an upward direction.
The house matron is responsible, not only for looking after what a domestic servant might look after, but she has the responsibility, in a way, in loco parentis for the boys in the house in which she is situated. I think that she deserves quite considerably higher pay than that paid to an ordinary domestic servant. At present, apparently, she does not get it. I hope that we may be told whether it is possible to increase the pay of the house matrons.
The other matter concerns the question of adopted children being allowed to go to this school. There was recently a case, which attracted some attention in the Press, of a seaman who wished to send his adopted child to Holbrook School. He was not allowed to do so. I appreciate the reason. I do not quarrel with the reason, which was that the original deed by which the charity was founded referred to the sons of seamen and did not say "the adopted sons of seamen".
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that it may be found possible to get round this difficulty. I am not quite certain how it can be done, but I hope that it will be possible. It seems to be a hardship, if a seaman had adopted a boy and wishes to send him to the school, if he cannot send him there in the same way as another seaman can send his own child.
Those are the only questions I want to ask. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can throw a little light on them. I hope that he will take plenty of time to do so, because we have started the debate three hours earlier that we usually start our discussion of this subject.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Basil Nield: I should like to add a few words to the comments made by the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), which I am certain have interested the House. I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty a Question last week upon the subject mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, the eligibility of adopted children for the benefits of the charity at Holbrook School. The reply I had was to the effect that under present law it was not possible for such adopted children so to benefit, but that the matter would be considered.
My special interest in the subject arises from the fact that, having been fortunate in the Ballot, I introduced a Private Member's Bill which ultimately became the Adoption Act, 1950. The great purpose of that Measure, which was supported by many hon. Members, was to endeavour to put the adopted child in a position as nearly approximating as possible to the position of a natural child.
In these circumstances, one feels very strongly that where a seafaring man—to use the words of the Charter of William and Mary, of, I think, 1694—adopts legally a child he should have the same opportunities of sharing in the benefits of Holbrook as others. Therefore, I join in asking my hon. and gallant Friend to consider sympathetically, as I am sure he will, the possibility of including adopted children in these benefits.

10.40 p.m.

Commander Noble: First, may I say that I agree with the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) that it is quite right that these Greenwich Hospital matters should be brought before the House from year to year, and that there should be a brief discussion on them. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that one of the most interesting and pleasant duties of a Parliamentary Secretary is to concern himself with these affairs.
The right hon. Gentleman asked first about the Northern Estates. I wish to give him the reassurance that we are good landlords and that the money is being well spent. There are very extensive estates in the North of England of about 40,000 acres, a great deal of which is timber. No income is obtained from the plantations unless money is spent from year to year on thinning and planting, and that is where a great deal of the money goes. The amount varies from year to year. This year it is less than in 1950–51 and in 1951–52.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the cottages. We have a vigorous policy of modernisation with regard to them; seventy-six out of eighty-seven have been modernised. I have visited the estates and seen some of the cottages. A good job is being done, and our tenants are very satisfied.
Turning to the Royal Hospital School at Holbrook, which used to be the Greenwich Hospital School, at Greenwich, the answer to the small point about house matrons is that in 1949, when the right hon. Gentleman was in my position, a scale was adopted comparable with the scale for similar schools in other parts of the country. Since then, there have been two increases of salary to correspond with salary increases outside. So far as I know, there have been no complaints from these ladies and we have had no difficulty recently in obtaining their services. Some of these positions are filled by the wives of housemasters, which I consider to be a good thing, as it makes the house even more of a family affair.
Both my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) and the right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of adopted children. Here we are faced with a legal problem. We are bound by the Greenwich Hospital Act. Legal opinion was taken in 1948, when the advice was that the word "children" in the Charter did not cover adopted children. Since then there has been the Adoption Act, 1950, for which my hon. and learned Friend was responsible. Again we have taken advice, which has proved to be the same. Although that Act confers certain rights, it does not place adopted children for all purposes in the position of ordinary children.
As my right hon. Friend said in answer to Questions from my hon. and learned Friend, we are examining the position and considering what can be done. I regret the handling of the case mentioned by the right hon. Member for West Bromwich. If the position of the Admiralty had been explained to the parents in the same manner as I have explained it tonight, I am sure that they would have understood.

Mr. Dugdale: Do I understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will make a statement at some later time about what is to happen to this boy? Will he be able to go to the school?

Commander Noble: I was trying to say that I am sure that if the boy's parents had fully understood the position, and had been made aware of the legal difficulties, they would have understood. But they were rather curtly informed that because the boy was an adopted child he could not go to Holbrook.
Holbrook had a good year from a scholastic point of view. Three boys went to university, one passed into Dartmouth and another won a Naval Cadet Scholarship. It also had a large number of General Certificates of Education.

Mr. Dugdale: I am still not quite satisfied about this boy. Do I understand that it has in fact been decided that it will be impossible for him to get in—that the law cannot be got round, as I

think the hon. and gallant Gentleman said—or is there some chance that some way may be found by which he can go to the school?

Commander Noble: I thought that I had made the position clear. At the moment, adopted children cannot go to Holbrook—and the boy is an adopted child. If we can find some way round the rule, while the boy still wants to go there, and is of the right age, we shall consider it. of course.
Finally, I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. N. Mallalieu), who have sat on the management committee of this school for a great number of years. We are most grateful for the help and time that they have given us.

Resolved,
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation, for the year ending on 31st March, 1956, presented to this House on 16th June, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Godber.]

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Eleven o'clock.